DVCal comment-82275 2013-05-04T17:55:16Z 2013-05-04T17:55:16Z Not sure were you are getting $20 to $30 to park at night, but the Old Sacramento Garage, which is right next to the New Arena, only charges $7 to park at night. This garage is run and owned by the city. DVCal 2013-05-04T17:55:16Z Curmudgeon comment-81486 2013-04-09T15:20:53Z 2013-04-09T15:20:53Z "commitment to the best Education in our public schools instead of the push to charter schools" Because bureaucrats know better than involved parents. :-P Curmudgeon 2013-04-09T15:20:53Z Greg Brown comment-81317 2013-04-03T19:30:15Z 2013-04-03T19:30:15Z But...I don't wanna keep downtown janky. #herewestay Greg Brown 2013-04-03T19:30:15Z ric comment-81309 2013-04-03T06:54:59Z 2013-04-03T06:54:59Z ... great plans William ... but unfortunately, except for a couple of votes, the Sacramento city council seems to be simply a one trick pony ... (and to think that just last year their best solution was to stick this in the railyards) ....but for only a little more dinero, we could make Sacramento and midtown a Bicycle friendly city starting with just a few improvements learned from Davis and Denmark - just envision Sacramento as the bicycle capitol, and with a bit of focus, and commitment to the best Education in our public schools instead of the push to charter schools: the Solar capitol for families - not just corporations, and a real effort to plant more Trees for the environment and the tree canopy that McClatchy so admired ... with Burg and Sheppard and these modest efforts, we could be developing the BEST city .... ric 2013-04-03T06:54:59Z Clara74 comment-81298 2013-04-02T21:32:46Z 2013-04-02T21:32:46Z Thank you William Burg and Tony Sheppard for sharing your rich knowledge and well balanced approach to everything I have ever read by both of you! Thank you Rick Houston for pointing out the fact that anyone who hides behind a pseudonym is not to be trusted. Clara74 2013-04-02T21:32:46Z KES comment-81295 2013-04-02T19:05:08Z 2013-04-02T19:05:08Z Thanks, Mr Burg, for saying this. There are many more ways to spark interest in the city than sports sports sports/ arena arena arena. Personally, I don't think there's room enough for all the people who would wish to park (within walking distance, most likely) of that arena. I hear that the little bit of parking around the Crocker Art Museum is being offered as a sacrifice to the arena gods, and I find that very troubling. I do respect other people's enthusiasm for the sports they enjoy, but... KES 2013-04-02T19:05:08Z Tony Sheppard comment-81264 2013-04-01T20:35:36Z 2013-04-01T20:35:36Z Two p's please. And thanks. :) Tony Sheppard 2013-04-01T20:35:36Z Sactownmax comment-81219 2013-04-01T18:39:23Z 2013-04-01T18:39:23Z Mr. Burg and Shepard ... I always enjoy a respectful spirited debate (Thank you both) Sactownmax 2013-04-01T18:39:23Z cogmeyer comment-81216 2013-04-01T16:53:14Z 2013-04-01T16:53:14Z kudos William for putting a proposal out there that includes examples, dollar amounts and a cogent development strategy. It is interesting that the knee jerk "planning" process from our city leadership is essentially 1) worry that Kings will leave 2) envision various $500M options for new arenas 3) Search for revenue sources, find $250M parking revenues. Despite the huge dollars and long term impacts involved, it is interesting that there was never any serious analysis or consideration whether 1) and 2) are the best investments for the city. While I have reservations about the payback of William's streetcar proposal, I absolutely love the fact that reasonable ideas are being put on the table. cogmeyer 2013-04-01T16:53:14Z RickHouston comment-81210 2013-03-31T04:11:51Z 2013-03-31T04:11:51Z Rhys02, It's difficult to take seriously any comments from someone who hides behind a pseudonym. I assume that if you had any pride or good intentions behind your words, you would state your real name; as it stands, your words are no more relevant than those found on a bathroom stall. RickHouston 2013-03-31T04:11:51Z William Burg comment-81205 2013-03-30T17:31:01Z 2013-03-30T17:31:01Z Actually, events like the All-Star Weekend often don't bring much net coin into the city--either because people who might have come downtown to spend money don't go to avoid the NBA crowds, or because the expenses of hosting the event cancel out any revenue to the city. The difference between "net profit" and "gross profit" is important here. Gross profit minus expenses equals net profit. If expenses are greater than gross profit, that means you lose money. http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/NBA-All-Star-Game-Falls-Short-of-Predictions-95467734.html William Burg 2013-03-30T17:31:01Z iadam comment-81203 2013-03-30T10:06:34Z 2013-03-30T10:06:34Z I would build an entertainment pavilion (that can host b-ball games if needed). Then use the funds made available from tax and development revenue to complete this list. iadam 2013-03-30T10:06:34Z Marc Ronson comment-81201 2013-03-30T04:42:04Z 2013-03-30T04:42:04Z Ironic all the city council bashing I see here over squabbling..... Marc Ronson 2013-03-30T04:42:04Z James comment-81197 2013-03-30T02:50:58Z 2013-03-30T02:50:58Z A streetcar system at a cost of $130 million dollars, to shuttle state workers past bailbond shops and stoic state office buildings will do NOTHING to bring increased pedestrian traffic downtown. At least with a new entertainment and sports center we are more likely to have the need for a streetcar eventually. That's not the case currently. James 2013-03-30T02:50:58Z William Burg comment-81195 2013-03-30T00:41:07Z 2013-03-30T00:41:07Z I saw you palm that card, Sactownmax. $32 million gross revenue is not the same as net revenue. Currently, the city generates $9 million a year in net profit from their parking authority--under the arena plan, they have to generate $20 million or more just to maintain that $9 million figure. A fiscally sound arena plan could capture more revenue without jeopardizing the general fund. That's what I'm asking for,. because the current plan doesn't measure up. Maybe the next one will--it won't be long, as downtown Sacramento is already improving and there are plenty of folks who want to take advantage of it. William Burg 2013-03-30T00:41:07Z William Burg comment-81194 2013-03-30T00:36:17Z 2013-03-30T00:36:17Z We've heard plenty of vague promises about billions in investment with every big developer scheme in the past few decades--the Railyards (including the Roma, Millenia and Thomas Enterprises plans) for example. But all I hear are vague promises--no concrete dollar signs, nothing with a fiscal commitment attached to it. And who can blame them--why buy the loaf when they can get taxpayer-subsidized slices? William Burg 2013-03-30T00:36:17Z William Burg comment-81193 2013-03-30T00:34:10Z 2013-03-30T00:34:10Z No, LMW has it right--a streetcar is not the same thing as light rail. The vehicles are smaller and lighter, operate at higher frequency and lower speeds, and require less infrastructure (and are less expensive.) The plans proposed in 2011 would use modern streetcars, not historic streetcars--they have low floors for easy boarding, bike and ADA access without station ramps, plus modern conveniences like air conditioning. Portland has both a light rail system (MAX) and a streetcar system, they are not the same system. And their streetcar line attracted $3.5 billion in private investment within a decade. It happened because they coordinated new city growth to happen in proximity to transit lines. Light rail doesn't work the same way because it is based around a park-and-ride model, and because the Sacramento region made no effort to prioritize new development areas around light rail stops. Should they have? Yes. But that's a correctable mistake, if we can get the Board of Supervisors and City Council to stop granting permits for greenfield development on sites nowhere near transit service. As we have discussed elsewhere, a central city resident can kind of use light rail as an ersatz "streetcar" to get around the neighborhood, but an actual streetcar would function more efficiently, and if coupled with development incentives, we'd see some of the growth Portland and other cities have already seen. William Burg 2013-03-30T00:34:10Z William Burg comment-81192 2013-03-30T00:27:25Z 2013-03-30T00:27:25Z I had a wonderful train set when I was a kid (thanks, Dad!) Does anyone wonder if the folks running this city see Sacramento as their own fantasy basketball league? William Burg 2013-03-30T00:27:25Z William Burg comment-81191 2013-03-30T00:25:21Z 2013-03-30T00:25:21Z Phoenix has light rail--a bit newer than ours, but it's an LRV system rather than a streetcar system. They're the twelfth-busiest in the country--right behind ours. William Burg 2013-03-30T00:25:21Z William Burg comment-81190 2013-03-30T00:24:31Z 2013-03-30T00:24:31Z I'm using Land Park as the example because you know the neighborhood, but the same thing applies to all the neighborhoods you mentioned--the end of their streetcar lines were the turning point when all those neighborhoods started falling on hard times. Which suggests that maybe what they need isn't "redevelopment" but reconnection to our urban core. William Burg 2013-03-30T00:24:31Z William Burg comment-81189 2013-03-30T00:23:07Z 2013-03-30T00:23:07Z Despite what some folks seem to think, "mixed use" means more than just "bars." A neighborhood needs many types of businesses--retail, professional, restaurants, and sure, an occasional bar. Although some of those entertainment functions will hopefully be accessible to those under 21! If there are many types of businesses (along with residences) in a mixed-use neighborhood, entertainment uses can fit comfortably into the mix without sacrificing density. And it isn't necessary to turn every entertainment venue into a Cold War bunker to mitigate sound; the city of Austin has a fund specifically intended to provide soundproofing at its many live music venues. William Burg 2013-03-30T00:23:07Z Tony Sheppard comment-81187 2013-03-29T23:43:35Z 2013-03-29T23:43:35Z "...contemplating..." And I think you're muddling my interest here - I'm not anti-arena, nor have I stated that I'm pro-streetcar. I just want to see the conversation acknowledge and consider alternatives. If the end result is that the arena seems like both a good idea and the best idea, then let's go for it. But I don't see the City Council looking at a list of alternatives and comparing them at all - it's presented as arena or gloom and doom. When you see something you like, do you jump and buy it or do you consider whether you can afford it and what else you might do with the money? I'd just like the City Council to consider spending $250m in the same way that you or I might consider spending $250. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T23:43:35Z Sactownmax comment-81186 2013-03-29T22:43:51Z 2013-03-29T22:43:51Z fyi - ( Mr. Shepard ) .... ( As reported in the Bee ) The Burkle group is contemplating a massive overhaul of the Downtown Plaza site, going beyond the arena to build a hotel, office and retail space and 600 units of residential housing plus city officials said they're confident the garages, meters and parking tickets would generate roughly $32 million a year in gross revenue ..... - Or we could have a street car ... Hmmmmmmm Sactownmax 2013-03-29T22:43:51Z Curmudgeon comment-81176 2013-03-29T22:42:07Z 2013-03-29T22:42:07Z "Streetcars are often called "development-oriented transit" because they promote growth of transit-oriented neighborhoods along their right-of-way." Really? How will building a streetcar between West Sacramento and Downtown succeed where building streetcars between Downtown and "Uptown" Del Paso (and later North Highlands) and Downtown and East Sacramento (and later Rancho Cordova, and later Folsom) failed? And please don't tell me that it is because the RT streetcars are not historical enough. :-) Adding housing for new downtown residents is laudable, but how about getting out of the developer's way when they want to do just that? Curmudgeon 2013-03-29T22:42:07Z Paul Cox comment-81185 2013-03-29T22:04:45Z 2013-03-29T22:04:45Z You miss the point of the article. The point is not to bring down suburbanites for a couple hours at a time, but to redevelop to entice them to move to downtown. More population downtown will result in a renewed downtown, one that doesn't die at 5 or 6 at night. Paul Cox 2013-03-29T22:04:45Z LandParkRes comment-81184 2013-03-29T22:04:22Z 2013-03-29T22:04:22Z I'm not worried about Land Park. I'm worried about the parts of Sacramento that need redevelopment other than downtown and midtown. LandParkRes 2013-03-29T22:04:22Z pistola916 comment-81178 2013-03-29T21:59:13Z 2013-03-29T21:59:13Z People are not parking downtown at night as it currently is. Once the office and government workers leave at five, the area becomes a ghost town. There's nothing there that will attract suburbanites except for the occasional night out at a bar/club/lounge or some celebratory event. Building an arena will bring people downtown for concerts, family-related events, and so much stuff beyond NBA basketball. And instead of spending that money at an arena in Natomas, attendees, before and after event, will most likely bring that cash into downtown businesses on J,K, and L streets as well as midtown, where most of the action is. Plus, when will you ever see a investors proposing a $1 Billion investment in downtown development. That's unheard of in this city. If Sacramento is fortunate enough to keep the Kings, that whole area around the Plaza/new arena will be transformed into a destination. We are talking about new hotels, residential and office projects along with new clubs, bars, restaurants, shops. A new arena is exactly the shot in the arm downtown needs. Some pundits and naysayers say the risk outweigh the rewards. Quite frankly, I say the rewards outweigh the risk -- just look at Denver, Washington DC, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Portland, all of which have arenas in its downtown core. It's time for Sacramento to grow up! Jump in the water and learn how to swim ! pistola916 2013-03-29T21:59:13Z Curmudgeon comment-81183 2013-03-29T21:40:50Z 2013-03-29T21:40:50Z Semantics. Where "light rail" goes through the Grid, it plods along at a streetcar pace. Moreover, the shining example given of Portland *is* a light rail system, one with a better right of way grade separation., and hence more speed, than Sacramento at that. This suggests that something else is at work in Sacramento. I suspect it is our perpetually squabbling city council. Curmudgeon 2013-03-29T21:40:50Z lmw comment-81182 2013-03-29T21:31:19Z 2013-03-29T21:31:19Z The light rail went up Del Paso Blvd. before the most recent attempt to make it the new "Uptown' It seems there is a slight difference between light rail and street car. Light rail being more of a commuter option that goes through downtowns but picks up speed for more far-away places. Street cars seem to be used for more local destinations lmw 2013-03-29T21:31:19Z Tony Sheppard comment-81181 2013-03-29T21:26:14Z 2013-03-29T21:26:14Z Most of the revenue being earmarked for this is still based on the current $9m/year that parking already generates. Some of that comes from night-time parking, which is relatively modest downtown but which is charged for in garages (although not on the street, as has been detailed in multiple SacPress comments threads). If an arena could generate enough ticket and parking revenue by itself to cover costs, you'd have a line of developers wrapped around City Hall begging to be allowed to build such a structure and willing to pay for the whole thing themselves. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T21:26:14Z Tony Sheppard comment-81180 2013-03-29T21:22:07Z 2013-03-29T21:22:07Z Part of the historic reason that Saramento has been a second-tier city for conventions and meeting business is that the Convention Center capacity was larger than the adjacent hotel capacity. This improved with the building of the Sheraton and more recently The Citizen, and the nearby hotels (primarily those two and the Hyatt, work well together as a team to accommodate groups. But we're still not a city that can easily accommodate thousands of overnight attendees - which is why you see a lot of drive-in events at the Convention Center and Cal Expo, such as home shows, gun shows, doll shows, etc. rather than conventions of 5,000 people that routinely descend upon other cities. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T21:22:07Z Curmudgeon comment-81179 2013-03-29T21:21:05Z 2013-03-29T21:21:05Z "A functioning mixed-use neighborhood has entertainment venues within its boundaries mixed in with other uses, so the neighborhood is useful 24 hours a day--not an 8-hour shift and 16 hours when it's underutilized." The problem with this is that the neighbors will complain about the entertainment venue noise, unless (1) the neighbors remain perpetually single childless 20 something hipsters, (2) the entertainment venue is spaced out more, which defeats the packed-in downtown plan, or (3) the entertainment venue is built costly and thick walled, like a Cold-War era missile silo. Curmudgeon 2013-03-29T21:21:05Z Curmudgeon comment-81177 2013-03-29T21:10:57Z 2013-03-29T21:10:57Z Sadly, a new Toyota or BMW factory cannot happen in today's business-bashing, enviro-fanatical, left-leaning, non-right-to-work California. The NUMMI plant in Fremont only worked because Toyota got to pick up GM's slack, and even that is gone now. Curmudgeon 2013-03-29T21:10:57Z P W comment-81175 2013-03-29T20:29:45Z 2013-03-29T20:29:45Z I'm beginning to wonder if Mr. Burg sees Sacramento as his own fantasy train set that he never got for Christmas. P W 2013-03-29T20:29:45Z Sactownmax comment-81173 2013-03-29T20:16:50Z 2013-03-29T20:16:50Z Mr. Shepard - Night time parking revenue DOES NOT currently exist as proposed in this stadium deal - I reiterate I can't imagine folks paying 10 + dollars to park and ride the street car so just WHERE is the 250 million coming from ? Mr. Burg ... Come on now, additional projects are NOT being held up by the Arena discussion & There are plenty of people already living downtown( so Yes I can imagine people living downtown ) As for my first hand observation of the trans-formative power of a down town arena .. The Toyota Center In Houston recently hosted the NBA's signature event - All Star Weekend. I'll bet that brought a few coins into the city :) Sactownmax 2013-03-29T20:16:50Z TheVoiceofReason comment-81172 2013-03-29T20:08:38Z 2013-03-29T20:08:38Z I'm guessing some people think your comment is serious. I'll give you a thumbs up for excellent sarcasm! TheVoiceofReason 2013-03-29T20:08:38Z TheVoiceofReason comment-81171 2013-03-29T20:04:48Z 2013-03-29T20:04:48Z Looks like the BEE's political cartoonist, Jack Ohman, recently captured William's theme: http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2013/03/25/19/45/158Bpx.St.4.jpeg It's unknown if Jack realized that about 1/2 of the city's off-street parking inventory had been "term-sheeted away" when he created his caricatures. TheVoiceofReason 2013-03-29T20:04:48Z Tony Sheppard comment-81170 2013-03-29T20:00:48Z 2013-03-29T20:00:48Z Bill, Do you know anything about streetcars in Phoenix? I'm just asking because I happened to visit Phoenix a few years ago while they were being installed. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T20:00:48Z Tony Sheppard comment-81169 2013-03-29T19:58:23Z 2013-03-29T19:58:23Z What's stopping other projects is that they don't reach the point of serious consideration because the arena conversation sucks all the air out of the room. For $250m in matching funds and land gifts, we could potentially have something completely different like a Toyota or BMW factory - like multiple other states have done. I'm not saying that's the best use of such funding, but the fact that it's probably not an idea anybody reading this has given much thought to is an outcome of the fact that we're not considering other ideas, even those that have been done successfully elsewhere. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T19:58:23Z Tony Sheppard comment-81168 2013-03-29T19:53:19Z 2013-03-29T19:53:19Z Parking revenue already exists and is a substantial contributor to the City budget. And it's not a "GENIUS" idea to tie up that revenue stream for far longer than the life of a building in order to pay for that building. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T19:53:19Z William Burg comment-81167 2013-03-29T19:51:27Z 2013-03-29T19:51:27Z All of those streets were once served by streetcar lines, including your beloved Land Park (except for Meadowview, which was still farmland when the streetcars stopped.) American cities are discovering that strengthening its neighborhoods starts at the core, not via a spectacle that suburban residents drive to visit, but by turning our downtowns back into vital mixed-use neighborhoods, and rebuilding the transit connections that once drew our city together. By characterizing the proposed streetcar line as "between old sac and downtown" you miss the entire point of a streetcar's function. Running from West Sacramento to Midtown via Old Sacramento and Downtown, a streetcar line connects residents in adjacent urban neighborhoods to amenities, workplaces and commercial areas--even though those amenities, workplaces and commercial areas are also interspersed with residents. By "making our urban highways pedestrian and bike safe" I assume you're talking about Sacramento's business streets, not adding bike lanes and sidewalks to I-5 and Highway 50. The way to make those corridors better for pedestrians and bikes is by repeating the pattern that built Sacramento's best commercial streets--with streetcar lines. Land Park is a terrific example. Your neighborhood's historic streetcar line ended at what is now Temple B'nai Israel but was then the Riverside Baths, later known as the Land Park Plunge, a civic amenity at the end of a streetcar line that was later joined by William Land Park. Along Riverside a "streetcar suburb" neighborhood emerged, with retail uses dotting the main street interspersed with retail. At Y Street (later Broadway) was the old city cemetery, itself a streetcar destination since the 1870s, and our city's ballpark--not a "downtown" location but a facility built just outside the city limits. The streetcar continued up Tenth Street all the way downtown--connecting the suburb of Homeland (later Land Park) to downtown and the rest of the city. Streetcar-suburb business districts depend on street-fronting retail and mixed use, instead of street-facing parking lots, curb cuts, and high levels of automobile traffic. A "starter line" streetcar like this is designed for expansion. Running branch lines is much simpler once the starter line is established, but the most logical location for that starter line is the heart of downtown, connected to the most adjacent neighborhoods. From there, we can start connecting it outward to neighborhoods insufficiently served by rail transit, like Land Park, and coordinate it with other forms of transit like light rail, bus lines and Amtrak. That way, residents of Land Park will be able to ride a streetcar downtown or to go to a game, the way they used to. But if our arena plan is based solely on parking, there is no reason for our city to pursue alternatives to the automobile--it might threaten the arena's primary funding source! In fact, if you check the 2011 proposed streetcar plan, one of its expansion lines is planned for 3rd Street to serve Northwest Land Park, and then potentially back over the American river via a Broadway bridge, which will allow West Sacramento residents in the Southport area convenient transit access to Sacramento's downtown core--and a future arena. William Burg 2013-03-29T19:51:27Z TheVoiceofReason comment-81165 2013-03-29T19:44:16Z 2013-03-29T19:44:16Z If you haven't looked at Craig Powell's "Eye On Sacramento" groups concerrns, it's a must read for this discussion. http://eyeonsacramento.com/2013/03/an-eye-on-sacramento-report-on-the-arena-proposal/ It's also encouraging that the group made references to Judith Grant Long's recently released academic publication: Public/Private Partnerships in Major League Sports Facilities (2013) You can actually read the introduction of her book.... http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415806930/ click on "view inside this book" It should have been required reading for anybody negotiating for the city on this deal and the nine council members voting on it! TheVoiceofReason 2013-03-29T19:44:16Z William Burg comment-81164 2013-03-29T19:37:37Z 2013-03-29T19:37:37Z ...except they keep getting short-circuited by the endless arena circus, always the last one we'll ever get until the next one comes around the bend. William Burg 2013-03-29T19:37:37Z William Burg comment-81163 2013-03-29T19:37:15Z 2013-03-29T19:37:15Z That's because you apparently can't imagine people living downtown. That's pretty short-sighted, in my opinion. William Burg 2013-03-29T19:37:15Z William Burg comment-81162 2013-03-29T19:35:48Z 2013-03-29T19:35:48Z I'm always impressed by your ability to come up with creative lies about what you want to believe I think, generally things that have no relation whatsoever with what I do or say. But making claims about my tastes in coffee is beyond the pale--my advice is, switch to decaf. William Burg 2013-03-29T19:35:48Z William Burg comment-81161 2013-03-29T19:34:25Z 2013-03-29T19:34:25Z "This is our last chance for an arena!" is what we heard in 2006 with Measure Q & R. It's what we heard in 2010 with the "Convergence" plan. It's what we heard last year with the Railyards Arena plan, and it's what we'll hear after this plan implodes too. There is a whole class of professional liars and highly-paid sycophants who seem to do nothing but tell Sacramentans how horrible, backwards and pathetic we are for not signing on to whatever dreadful idea they are being paid to shill. It's always our last chance to propel ourselves instantly from the dreary doldrums into world-class superstardom. That's what Arco Arena was supposed to do in the first place! How many times do we have to hear the same lie before they stop repeating it? William Burg 2013-03-29T19:34:25Z William Burg comment-81160 2013-03-29T19:31:48Z 2013-03-29T19:31:48Z Yes, yes, we know that...it gets mentioned very, very, very frequently. It's also beside the point. William Burg 2013-03-29T19:31:48Z TheVoiceofReason comment-81159 2013-03-29T19:31:30Z 2013-03-29T19:31:30Z NewGuy...You need to read more carefully and pay closure attention to details....Hansen placed a bid. http://assets.bizjournals.com/sacramento/pdf/bankruptcy_status_bob_cook.pdf TheVoiceofReason 2013-03-29T19:31:30Z TheVoiceofReason comment-81158 2013-03-29T19:28:21Z 2013-03-29T19:28:21Z Additionally, in support of William's data, you need to read the Walker Consulting report from the Dec 13, 2011 Council Meeting. http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=377142&view=&showpdf=1 Downtown Plaza holds 3700 parking spaces, that according to the non binding term sheet just passed, 100% net parking revenues will turn be turned over to KINGS ESC Co or KINGS TeamCo depending upon the type of event or use. The 2011 Walker Report was developed with the assistance and building upon of the Data, Surveys and Policy implemented with Central City Parking Masterplan of 2006 conducted at the request of City Council by DKS, the 2006 parking report that William refers to. TheVoiceofReason 2013-03-29T19:28:21Z Sactownmax comment-81157 2013-03-29T19:18:27Z 2013-03-29T19:18:27Z I would add ... That there is nothing stopping any additional projects except ??? This type of second guessing that keeps projects from happening ! Sactownmax 2013-03-29T19:18:27Z Sactownmax comment-81155 2013-03-29T19:09:36Z 2013-03-29T19:09:36Z Incredibly short sited ... As Rhys 02 stated The Down Town Entertainment Complex is so much more than just "Basketball" - It's Monster Trucks , Motivational speakers , Globetrotters, Holiday on Ice , Justin Beiber , Beyonce , U2 ... Bull Riding ... Think you can dance .... So many events that have nothing to do with sport .... I lived in Houston as they built 3 new facilities (2) in downtown - It was night and day what was once blighted and abandoned became the "place" to be / go When you factor in the GENIUS idea of paying for it with revenue that doesn't / can't exist without the arena it's a NO brain-er ( can't imagine folks paying 10 + to park and ride the street car ) Sactownmax 2013-03-29T19:09:36Z Rhys02 comment-81150 2013-03-29T18:24:01Z 2013-03-29T18:24:01Z Mr Burg's no growth bias can be seen in his choice of words. it is NOT a basketball arena!!!!! Kings would be there less than a third of the year. The balance of the year would be booked by the concerts and events that now bypass Sacramento because we don't have an adequate facility. I would suggest Mr Burg check with the Convention Center as to the numbers of conventions we lose because no convention, even if free transportation is thrown will travel to Sleep Train. Those convention dollars are NEW dollars from outside the area that Sacramento and its businesses will capture. This is the reason to support the event center, not the Kings. Mr. Burg obviously has an agenda and if he can keep the conversation about billionaires and basket ball he can kill this project. I suspect Mr Burg gets his coffee at Starbucks rather than a local shop. If Seattle wins they will have folks like Mr. Burg to thank even more than the 'whales' they collected. Rhys02 2013-03-29T18:24:01Z P W comment-81149 2013-03-29T18:03:05Z 2013-03-29T18:03:05Z We've spent YEARS pondering a multitude of "What Ifs" for our city. As a result, Downtown, other than a couple of nice new office buildings and some renovations of others, (including the Crocker) hasn't changed a bit. More importantly, the populous has grown weary - most having given up on anything significant happening in downtown in their lifetimes (and the ones I refer to are only in their 30s and 40s!). If this arena deal doesn't happen, the city will surely drop into a deep vat of malaise for another 10-20 years. I appreciate the author's enthusiasm and rich knowledge of this area's history, but I'm afraid the vast population of Sacramento is more inclined to react to change, and not to do anything to bring it about. If the arena deal goes down in flames - so, too, will the acreage in Natomas, when the Sleep Train Arena and surrounding land is suddenly abandoned next year, and there will be little chance of anyone willing to do anything with it without a corresponding downtown arena deal. How much will the city need to spend to maintain that white elephant to keep it from collapsing over the next 10-20 years? P W 2013-03-29T18:03:05Z Ben Ilfeld comment-81147 2013-03-29T17:15:44Z 2013-03-29T17:15:44Z And recall that sports complexes often draw more nights of concerts and non-sports live events than the number of days an actual sports team plays there. Ben Ilfeld 2013-03-29T17:15:44Z William Burg comment-81144 2013-03-29T15:29:05Z 2013-03-29T15:29:05Z The Central City has done plenty of "visioning." We've been non-stop "visioning" for decades right now, making up plans for Railyards neighborhoods, Docks neighborhoods, Central City design guidelines, JLK Corridor design charrettes, skyscraper proposals that get approved but never built and leave usable buildings vacant for decades, General Plan planning sessions and update sessions, Historic District infill design guidelines, streetcar lines (in 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2011) and plans to plans to make plans that maybe get posted on a website and forgotten about, but haven't DONE much because LOOK SHINY ARENA! "Visioning" we have plenty of. Maybe too much. We don't spend much time looking at what's there and what we could do with it, and too much time imagining what we could put there if money, time and reality weren't an obstacle. William Burg 2013-03-29T15:29:05Z William Burg comment-81145 2013-03-29T15:18:44Z 2013-03-29T15:18:44Z The 1000 block of K Street, for all practical purposes, is a multi-venue club like America Live, but remember that America Live flopped horribly. Pre-programmed "entertainment districts" generally don't work because they are still based on the single-use mindset that doesn't really work downtown. A functioning mixed-use neighborhood has entertainment venues within its boundaries mixed in with other uses, so the neighborhood is useful 24 hours a day--not an 8-hour shift and 16 hours when it's underutilized. Theme parks are swell, but they take up an awful lot of space--the best sites might be turning Cal Expo from an occasional theme park into a full-time one, or it's a nice potential use for the Natomas site if we can get the levees fixed enough to remove the flood moratorium. In either case, theme parks are something that the private sector is better suited to fund and build than the government. William Burg 2013-03-29T15:18:44Z LandParkRes comment-81143 2013-03-29T15:12:58Z 2013-03-29T15:12:58Z I understand the importance of revitalizing downtown, but what about ALL the other areas of Sacramento that need help? Del Paso Blvd, Oak Park, Meadowview, Franklin Blvd, Stockton Blvd, and Broadway. For those that have lived in Sacramento a long time, downtown and midtown have and continue to revitalize. I think it would be really cool to have a street car between old sac and downtown, but should that be a priority over making our urban highways pedestrian and bike safe? Or providing public transportation to low income commuters? LandParkRes 2013-03-29T15:12:58Z candacea12 comment-81142 2013-03-29T14:14:49Z 2013-03-29T14:14:49Z I would love to see some other entertainment in either or both cities that isn't sports related. Not everyone likes sports, and there are a lot of other really fun things that people have in other cities that have huge revenue. How about a theme part like Six Flags? Who doesn't love a theme park? Or maybe another new multi-venue club concept like what used to be in downtown mall (America Live). There are so many different things that are popular in other cities that we don't have here...it would be nice to have some different kinds of entertainment for both adults and children. I get tired of having to drive and hour or more from home to do fun stuff with my family. candacea12 2013-03-29T14:14:49Z Chris Morfas comment-81140 2013-03-29T13:31:55Z 2013-03-29T13:31:55Z Thanks, Bill. As a community, the Central City hasn't done much visioning, has it? The opportunity costs of this decision to build an arena have hardly been discussed. However, we do seem well-positioned to receive federal transportation dollars for streetcar capital investment. The parking revenues would make one heckuva local match and source of operating funding tho. Chris Morfas 2013-03-29T13:31:55Z Tony Sheppard comment-81119 2013-03-29T07:54:57Z 2013-03-29T07:54:57Z The funny thing is that my "challenge" also started as a comment somewhere else and then seemed to make more sense in its own place. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T07:54:57Z Matias Bombal comment-81118 2013-03-29T07:49:13Z 2013-03-29T07:49:13Z OUTSTANDING. Matias Bombal 2013-03-29T07:49:13Z Tony Sheppard comment-81114 2013-03-29T03:43:15Z 2013-03-29T03:43:15Z Not a done deal yet. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-29T03:43:15Z newguyinsac comment-81077 2013-03-27T22:12:00Z 2013-03-27T22:12:00Z It's all a moot point, Chris Hansen just bought the 7% of the team that was in bankruptcy. Game over Sacramento. Instead of focusing on keeping the Kings maybe City leaders could put this much effort into what they are going to do to turn this back into a safe, clean city.... post NBA. newguyinsac 2013-03-27T22:12:00Z Tony Sheppard comment-81073 2013-03-27T21:48:42Z 2013-03-27T21:48:42Z Let's assume for a moment that all you say is an accurate representation of what will happen. What do we do to address that problem that whatever benefit (assuming a benefit) comes Downtown's way is lost to Natomas, also part of the City? If restaurants and hotels benefit downtown, do restaurants and hotels in Natomas go out of business and stop generating sales and occupancy taxes? Do property values in Natomas drop, where new housing developments were touted as being within walking distance of the existing arena and where businesses developed around pre-existing arena traffic, yielding lower property taxes? Tony Sheppard 2013-03-27T21:48:42Z Jason Tarman comment-81072 2013-03-27T21:15:47Z 2013-03-27T21:15:47Z The earlier comment alluded to the city essentially taking brand new revenue bonds with a 30 year amor rate, as opposed to what I'm pondering (and you seem to agree with), which is that the city's ESC revenue bonds, without the rollover from the 1997 lease revenue bonds, replenish the funds taken from future parking revenue within the projected life span of the ESC, not a decade after the fact. Companies (big & small) and people consolidate debts as a practical matter all the time. The city isn't hanging its citizens out to dry by doing so with the ESC revenue bonds (I won't comment on why the 1997 revenue bonds had a 25-30 year amortization period, as I did not live in this area at that time). The number 35 applies to the base minimum lease duration for the Kings at the ESC, not the term of revenue bond payment........ To clarify on the SF parking example, the raised rates are for the duration of the event, not the entire day of. With all due respect, I think using the London Olympic Games (which were certainly overhyped from a business revenue & crowd standpoint) is a bit overkill. We're discussing the spector of increased street parking rates in the very near vicinity of the ESC during an ESC event, not two continuous weeks of overpriced cabs, airfares, food & beverage, etc. And in fairness, the words 'high rise parking garage building boom' are overkill as well. I'd guess that we could make use of existing site locations that would have a minimal impact on constructability of future business & residential options for downtown residents (that lovely on grade parking lot at 6th & L would be a good place to start?). Most folks will park in a garage space for an ESC event anyways (there isn't that much in the way of street parking in the immediate vicinity. I spend a fair amount of time in the downtown plaza area & immediate surrounding blocks. I've checked.......). As for people avoiding the area at certain times, you can only forecast up to a certain point as to how people will behave. If the nearby unaffiliated busnesses offer what downtown plaza currently provides in the form of validated parking & spaces are still accessible at other nearby city owned parking structures (10th St as an example), then some of the 'stay aways' will still come down during an ESC event. Some will not. Let's not be naive that there aren't other areas for non-downtown residents to shop/ eat/ conduct business at (I say this as a former midtown resident & current city resident). Will the ESC draw in EVERYBODY? Probably not. I don't know of an arena/ large redevelopment project that does. Will it nonetheless have a very positive impact? Yes. The ESC will certainly increase foot traffic in the Downtown Plaza area & be a catalyst for additional development (which should include housing options to increase the residential density of downtown) in the immediate surrounding area. Jason Tarman 2013-03-27T21:15:47Z Tony Sheppard comment-81069 2013-03-27T19:08:57Z 2013-03-27T19:08:57Z I think you're very effectively demonstrating the nature and extent of the problems rather than diminishing them. I was talking about the downside of a 35 year payment plan on a 20-25 year building. And what you describe as the leftover payments on the existing arena demonstrate the danger in this. If at the point of new construction you're still trying to figure out a way of paying for the old construction, and the new payment plan does the same thing, you slowly get further and further behind. You're talking about (possibly) rolling in 4-5 years of old payments. Next time around there would be 10-15 years of old payments outstanding with that revenue stream (from parking, assuming the math is even accurate which seems highly doubtful) already tied up. What happens the next time after that...? And the SF parking example is also worrying. Higher metered parking rates on game days mean that people have to know the event calendar in advance (and, remember, many people aren't remotely interested in the team or concert schedule) or will avoid the area on busy days - or, worse still, will simply avoid the area for fear of it being busy. Bars and restaurants will benefit on event occasions but I wouldn't want to be operating any other kind of unrelated business downtown on days when my customer base has to fight for and pay extra for parking, if it can even be found. This isn't unique to areas like this, you also see it for other kinds of special events. Last summer, London hosted the Olympics and many people would assume that was an economic boon for the City. Yet business owners, attraction operators, and folks like cab drivers consistently reported it to be the slowest summer in memory. And airlines were having some of the most extreme mid-summer sales on tickets to London that I've ever seen (and I used to be a travel agent) with fares that were closer to winter rates and even business class tickets for what would normally be a summer economy class rate. Regular visitors stayed away. If you're not motivated by the event itself, it's an inconvenience to be avoided. And behavior doesn't just shift to other days. If you skip Downtown on a day you might otherwise have visited and find somewhere else to eat or shop, you might establish a new habit. And you can't assume that the game day eaters and shoppers are going to visit on occasions when they're not motivated by a game. And, as Bill said, if you see your high rise parking garage building boom (and you can be sure that a private developer won't build a 20 year building on a 35 year payment plan!) then you impact the City's projections for the amount of City parking being used to help make the payments - so the new parking garages would need the same type of game day surcharges. And then they would sit relatively empty the rest of the time, blocking the development of what Downtown Sacramento most desperately needs for long time economic sustainability, which is more residents eating, drinking, shopping near their homes all the time. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-27T19:08:57Z Tony Sheppard comment-81067 2013-03-27T18:42:25Z 2013-03-27T18:42:25Z It's functionally free for the people parking there - at least after 6pm and on Sundays. It's hard to imagine that not changing and you'll see plenty of people lamenting the loss of that opportunity. Meanwhile, the arena will draw a crowd (or relocate a crowd that previously already existed in Natomas) on very specific game and event days/nights. The metered parking would be there all the time (it's hard to set meters or have users understand different rates based on an event calendar). And if you have a game night surcharge on City and private garages,what of the people who wanted to go Downtown to do something else? Many people would simply avoid Downtown on those occasions and many others would be less inclined to go Downtown on an average evening than they are inclined to do so now (and people already complain that there are too few with such an inclination) because of the evening metered parking or the fear of encountering an event on a calendar they don't check. If you don't pay at the point of use, or based on the amount of use, you tend to perceive something to be free - we tend to feel that way about public roads. Imagine what would happen if all the roads in and out of town became toll roads on game days. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-27T18:42:25Z Jason Tarman comment-81060 2013-03-27T16:11:48Z 2013-03-27T16:11:48Z There was an earlier comment regarding the oddity of having revenue bonds with a 30 yr amortization on a facility with a maximum life span of only 20-25 years. I would agree that on the surface, this certainly seems odd & like a glaring error in the revenue math for the city's share of project costs. However, in reading the term sheet, the city is retiring outstanding 1997 Lease Revenue Bonds and essentially rolling the remaining owed principal & interest into the payments/ terms of the new bonds for the ESC. Possible that the 30 yr amortization period is due to the fact that the city is recouping outstanding owed debts on the earlier bonds as part of this package of new bonds for the ESC? If a reasonable assumption of 25 yr amortization periods for both sets of bonds is utilized, then there are approximately 4-5 years of payment period left on the 1997 bonds. Roll that into a 25 yr period for the new ESC bonds, and 30 yr amortization makes a bit more sense....... As for increases in downtown parking meter hours, metering costs, etc........these tend to come with the arrival of this type of facility in a dense urban area (SF finally realized that it's meters surrounding AT&T Park were TOO cheap and has announced that game day metered rates will be substantially increased for next season). The parking balance between downtown & midtown will sort itself out (I personally doubt that it becomes that big of an issue east of 16th St simply because most people will pay the extra $$ for a closer street or garage spot rather than walk a minimum of 9 city blocks to obtain a free spot. If there is THAT much demand for spots on game night, then we'll see a high rise parking garage building boom.........). Jason Tarman 2013-03-27T16:11:48Z Curmudgeon comment-81055 2013-03-27T15:09:40Z 2013-03-27T15:09:40Z I had to edit for incomplete grammar. I didn't mean to give the impression that new parking should not be subject to the surcharge, quite the opposite. Sorry about that. Curmudgeon 2013-03-27T15:09:40Z Marc Ronson comment-81059 2013-03-27T15:08:22Z 2013-03-27T15:08:22Z That was actually the point I was getting to, just slowly. In your original article you say we will have to give up 'free' parking, but no such thing really exists. We're simply using the money we spent to subsidize 'free' parking to now building an arena. Marc Ronson 2013-03-27T15:08:22Z William Burg comment-81058 2013-03-27T14:57:38Z 2013-03-27T14:57:38Z Well, if you want to get technical about it, "free" parking isn't free--the taxpayers pay for it, the city maintains it, but people aren't charged for its use. And the point of this plan is to generate more parking revenue during arena events--if the parking spaces in question don't charge money, that means zero increase in revenue. William Burg 2013-03-27T14:57:38Z Marc Ronson comment-81057 2013-03-27T14:55:29Z 2013-03-27T14:55:29Z So, that isn't exactly 'free'. It's metered during most of the day with limited times it isn't. That's pretty common in most larger cities. Marc Ronson 2013-03-27T14:55:29Z Dan Allison comment-81046 2013-03-27T04:49:27Z 2013-03-27T04:49:27Z It seems to me that the point of parking fees is to primarily to manage demand (and secondarily to recover the expense of building the parking), so that some space is always open, as has been so well researched by Donald Shoup (The High Cost of Free Parking), and is now being implemented in many places including San Francisco. If a surcharge creates a differential between public garage, public on-street, and private parking, such management becomes very difficult. If there is a surcharge on public garage parking, there should be a surcharge on private parking and on street parking. If there is a demand in the evening, then parking fees should be charged. At some distance from the city center and attractions, the expense of managing parking is greater than the income from parking fees. Those areas would not have fees, and would continue to offer "free" parking. Thank you, William, for your analysis. Dan Allison 2013-03-27T04:49:27Z William Burg comment-81041 2013-03-27T02:27:42Z 2013-03-27T02:27:42Z Currently, on-street parking in downtown Sacramento is almost entirely free after 6 PM and all day Sundays. Many portions of downtown have 1-2 hour free parking, while others have meters. There are some limited exceptions: Old Sacramento charges until 8 PM for street parking every day, and the blocks around Wells Fargo Pavilion/Music Circus are either time-limited or metered until 10 PM. The meters run later because of evening events--metering hours downtown around an arena would have to change, for the same reasons. William Burg 2013-03-27T02:27:42Z Rhonda Erwin comment-81039 2013-03-27T02:07:40Z 2013-03-27T02:07:40Z Having read the comments on this and other articles related to the arena seems some should put their egos aside, (being able to say I'm part owner of a sports team or i stopped a sports team from leaving-Ego) Because after reading many comments it appears to me, "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread" Rhonda Erwin 2013-03-27T02:07:40Z Rhonda Erwin comment-81038 2013-03-27T01:48:48Z 2013-03-27T01:48:48Z "...Any agreement to keep the team in town will necessarily be dependent on them having somewhere to play - and with an expectation that it's up to date and up to league (and other event) standards. If that wasn't a recurring issue, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd simply be using the arena we already have." EXCELLENT points, not just within this one post but throughout your comments on this issue. I am really impressed, both you and William Burg have offered a constructive bridge of dialog-- a very constructive bridge of dialog. In my opinion, you both should be included in any futher dicussion. I found, from attending so many youth violence meetings, some closed minded people often look for like-minded individuals so flaws will not be pointed out or discussed. They get focus groups or studies that will produce the result they desire- therefore getting half-baked ideas/ thoughts/ solutions. Both you and Burg appear passionate about this issue and knowledgable, it would seem to me you both should be included in discussions the city may have in moving forward-- that is if they want to genuinely look at this issue and untangle any flaws..... Again, I am impressed. Rhonda Erwin 2013-03-27T01:48:48Z Marc Ronson comment-81036 2013-03-27T01:27:35Z 2013-03-27T01:27:35Z Where is there 'free' parking in the city? Marc Ronson 2013-03-27T01:27:35Z Tony Sheppard comment-81031 2013-03-27T00:44:52Z 2013-03-27T00:44:52Z Rhys02, aside from your personal attack, "local law firms trolling for an issue to bill" haven't had any more time to examine the term sheet than councilmembers have. Mr. Burg has spent his weekend reading it himself as he has with virtually every public document that has been released on this topic. And, as he says, you don't generate ANY revenue for evening events from free parking meters. And, at some point, the term sheet assumes that parking revenues will increase dramatically from a reduced inventory of spaces. So, if metered parking doesn't become paying parking into the evening, the parking lots would have to generate even more money as the only source left. And, as I've said multiple times, you have to think it will last favorably for 35 years while paying for a building that will need to be replaced a decade or more sooner than that. That's a problem - even for a King's fan who wants the team and wants the arena. Or at least it should be. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-27T00:44:52Z William Burg comment-81028 2013-03-27T00:25:17Z 2013-03-27T00:25:17Z The two sources I used were posted with the story--the term sheet, and a 2006 parking study. How else do you explain a tripling of revenue with a reduced number of parking spaces? Right now, the revenue that comes from on-street parking after 6 PM is ZERO. The only way to make any more money from evening on-street parking is to extend parking hours to cover the hours of arena events...otherwise the city is giving away half of their parking supply for free. That would mean city lots, only about 5000 spots after we give almost 4000 to Burkle, have to generate five times as much revenue as they do now. And I'd rather jam a fork in my eyeball than run for public office. William Burg 2013-03-27T00:25:17Z Rhys02 comment-81027 2013-03-27T00:15:13Z 2013-03-27T00:15:13Z I wonder where Mr Burg gets his information... possibly local law firms trolling for an issue to bill? There is nothing in the term sheet that expands metered parking or raises rates. In fact as Steve Cohen noted on KXJZ this am.. the methods used to estimate parking revenue were low balled and very conservative. Given the fact the events center will give a reason for folks to want to park downtown after 4PM.. Mr. Cohen expects revenue to increase. Any minimally informed person can see the city is getting a far better bargain than the railyard project and the impact will be immediate. If Mr. Burg wants to editorialize he should have the integrity to state that is what he is doing. If this is part of an effort to make himself known to the general public for a run on the City Council... Mr Burg should recognize he is leaving a very detailed history of being a NIMBY and anti-growth. Looking at the last election, not sure that is the image I would want to project. Rhys02 2013-03-27T00:15:13Z Tony Sheppard comment-81020 2013-03-26T22:36:04Z 2013-03-26T22:36:04Z You appear to have changed and moved your comment. That rather interrupts the flow of the conversation. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-26T22:36:04Z Curmudgeon comment-80999 2013-03-26T22:31:42Z 2013-03-26T22:31:42Z If the ESC investors use properties given by the city for new parking lots, but those new parking lots are also required to pay the parking surcharge to the city, is that such a problem? There may be no "Skyscraper Magic Fairy" to make downtown property owners and investors rich, but if this arena goes through, there most certainly will be a "Stacked Parking Garage Fairy". (Yes, the parking will have to be stacked). Curmudgeon 2013-03-26T22:31:42Z Tony Sheppard comment-80997 2013-03-26T22:00:17Z 2013-03-26T22:00:17Z I posted the following elsewhere (so the context is based on that discussion) - but the general sentiment fits here as well: And, yes, there are examples of arenas that have been beneficial. But there are also examples of arenas that have been disasters - that have adversely affected cities years after teams came and went. The financial side of it rarely ever pans out - and that's something that economists have agreed upon in article after article. Maybe that's not the point? Maybe the point that needs to be made is it's simply a good thing to have a team in town. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "It's a good thing and, hey look, it pays for itself over time!" without expecting to be called on that part of the claim. It simply doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny - and it certainly can't be examined in a meaningful way by councilmembers who need to vote on it in a period of a long weekend. And why should it even say that? We're used to be told of the downsides of positive things. "Take your medicine, it tastes awful but you'll feel better in the long run." I'd have greater respect for all this if somebody said "This is the right thing to do for morale despite the fact that it will tie up City financial resources for decades to come and probably cost far more than we're projecting." I may not agree with the underlying sentiment, but at least it would reflect an honest assessment and a recognition of how these things tend to pan out. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-26T22:00:17Z Tony Sheppard comment-80996 2013-03-26T21:57:52Z 2013-03-26T21:57:52Z If the event surcharge is part of the math and the parking revenue is also part of the math, then yes it's a problem, a very big problem. That's why Burg is suggesting that any new, private parking should also have a surcharge applied to it to offset the loss of parking revenue that the City might otherwise garner if a new parking space didn't render a City parking space obsolete. Imagine a ridiculous hypothetical that illustrates the problem and could actually occur on either a smaller scale or on multiple smaller scales to the point where it approaches the ridiculous scale I'm about to describe.... Let's say the arena is built and the City needs $5 from every ticket to every event and also $5 from event parking in its own lots. The developer builds an arena that seats 20,000 people and has a parking lot next door that fits 500 cars. Assume that all the rest of the parking is in City lots and that each car brings two people and that all people arrive by car (obviously false, but got with me on this). In this scenario, the City would get $100,000 in ticket surcharges and another $97,500 from parking fees from a sold out event. Now the developer decides to turn the 500 car parking lot into a 20 story 10,000 car parking lot. The City loses the $97,500 from parking fees and its own lots sit empty. But Bill would levy the same $5 fee on private parking - and many would happily pay it as those spaces would likely be closer. So there's no risk to the City if parking relocates away from City lots - in fact to some extent it benefits as others could still park in the City's lots for other purposes elsewhere in town, such as shopping and eating. Again, the math is intentionally ridiculous to illustrate the point. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-26T21:57:52Z RickHouston comment-80984 2013-03-26T20:29:39Z 2013-03-26T20:29:39Z Bill, how dare you attempt to figure out the details of this! Shame on you for not 'Thinking Big' enough!! RickHouston 2013-03-26T20:29:39Z Lisa Ouellette comment-80983 2013-03-26T20:27:45Z 2013-03-26T20:27:45Z Thanks, Bill, for providing a clear analysis of the flaws in this plan, despite the short review period allowed. This feels very much like a half baked plan, with significant financial risk on city residents, and negative impacts to midtown businesses and residents. Lisa Ouellette 2013-03-26T20:27:45Z Tony Sheppard comment-80981 2013-03-26T20:15:53Z 2013-03-26T20:15:53Z I'm not certain about this - but does the term sheet assume that parking revenue will increase over time purely as a result of inflation? Because, if it does, then the $9m currently going to the City from parking revenues would also increase over time, using the same logic, and the payback rate in the term sheet would have to allow for backfilling a bigger hole. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-26T20:15:53Z Tony Sheppard comment-80976 2013-03-26T20:04:55Z 2013-03-26T20:04:55Z Yes, I referenced zoning - my point was simply that it's easier to zone or re-zone a property before it's owned than to re-zone a property that is already owned as the latter can effectively change the value of existing property and is almost (or is) a taking of property value (assuming that the re-zoning is more restrictive rather than less restrictive). It's one thing for the City to tell you you won't be allowed to build and live in a house on a piece of land that isn't residentially zoned - it's another thing entirely for the City to tell you that the house you already live in or the residential lot you bought to build a house is no longer zoned residential. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-26T20:04:55Z William Burg comment-80972 2013-03-26T19:56:46Z 2013-03-26T19:56:46Z Cities limit what can be done with private property all the time--it is the basic principle of zoning. Under the new city parking code passed last year, there are no parking requirements for any new property constructed in Sacramento's central business district--and uses like parking lots are identified by the general plan as less-than-optimal uses for downtown land. As to how we'll pay for a new arena in 25 years? I have no idea...that's one of the many things not addressed by this term sheet. Including, just for starters, where is JMA (the main property owner of Downtown Plaza) in all this? Are they giving the land away for free? Are other property owners on the arena footprint (like Macy's) equally amenable? Or are they partners in the deal--and if so, how much money are they demanding, or how much are they adding? We simply don't know, it was left out of the term sheet, and the questions have not even been asked, let alone answered. William Burg 2013-03-26T19:56:46Z Tony Sheppard comment-80969 2013-03-26T19:51:18Z 2013-03-26T19:51:18Z I agree with most of the points you make here - although I'm not sure you could prohibit a current land owner from operating a parking lot (however opportunistically) without effectively harming them by reducing the value of their property (essentially the City would be taking property value from them and it approaches the use of eminent domain). Similarly with the idea of charging a new fee on top of whatever a current lot owner charges for parking (again, however opportunistically). But I do think one could restrict the use of the land being given to the developers, as that pre-dates the acquisition and would be part of the agreement (including that such a restriction be passed on to future owners of that property in subsequent sales) - or by re-zoning it to preclude parking. I'm also a fan of parking validations and this plan works better than simply giving the parking concession to an outside operator who doesn't share the same interests that the City has (something I wrote about and tried to drum up interest in previously). Although validation programs tend to be flawed in that one can buy a cheap item and avoid a more expensive fee (as I inadvertently did during the TDA meeting at Downtown Plaza). However, I think the biggest structural flaw is more significant, even if the math being used in the term sheet was perfect. You reference a 35 year time frame for the parking calculations when arenas tend to be outmoded and subject to replacement in the 20-25 year range. Any plan that mortgages an asset for longer than the lifespan of what is being paid for makes little sense. This is why we tend to see 15-30 loans on houses but only 3-6 year loans on cars. If we're still paying for this arena 35 years from now, how will we pay for the arena that we'll need 25 years from now? Any agreement to keep the team in town will necessarily be dependent on them having somewhere to play - and with an expectation that it's up to date and up to league (and other event) standards. If that wasn't a recurring issue, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we'd simply be using the arena we already have. Tony Sheppard 2013-03-26T19:51:18Z William Burg comment-80772 2013-03-20T00:19:35Z 2013-03-20T00:19:35Z Well, if you want to get technical about it, those who were deinstitutionalized often became homeless because there was no longer sufficient affordable housing after the losses attributable to redevelopment. Many moved into what little was available, a shrinking supply of SRO hotels and boarding houses, prior to that point traditional housing for entry-level workers and single adults. These housing forms became de facto social service centers (totally lacking in services) and less desirable for working people. You're right in that it was not the only cause, but it was the major identifiable cause. William Burg 2013-03-20T00:19:35Z William Burg comment-80758 2013-03-19T19:59:34Z 2013-03-19T19:59:34Z A lot of it was recorded, and is viewable via the links on the other story about the forum posted earlier today! William Burg 2013-03-19T19:59:34Z William Burg comment-80757 2013-03-19T19:58:47Z 2013-03-19T19:58:47Z True enough. One of my least favorite short-term "revitalization" tactics are graphic skins stuck over the windows of vacant storefronts--a solution that is many feet wide but only a fraction of an inch thick. Carina mentioned last night that the ground floor of the Renaissance Tower has been vacant for a decade--the building that was supposed to symbolize the revitalization of downtown Sacramento circa 1988! Across the street, there is a vacant lot, because the buildings were destroyed by fire. But what excuse does the Renaissance Tower's property management company (Jones Lang LaSalle, I think) have for letting one of the highest-profile corners in downtown sit vacant and dark? And yes, it is and should be about much more than murals. But the murals, in this case, are there to point to the problem, and toward solutions, not to mask over it. William Burg 2013-03-19T19:58:47Z BobR comment-80756 2013-03-19T19:19:34Z 2013-03-19T19:19:34Z I'm just bummed I'm reading about this presentation "after the fact". Sorry I missed it. BobR 2013-03-19T19:19:34Z stephanie taylor comment-80751 2013-03-19T18:24:13Z 2013-03-19T18:24:13Z William, the event sounds fantastic. Sorry I had to miss, but will look forward to more. My only wish is that we, the "creatives," find a more innovative means of aesthetics than the painting of more murals. This may seem like a weird thing to say, for someone who's been painting murals for over thirty years, but really, there's got to be a new twist. stephanie taylor 2013-03-19T18:24:13Z Keith Sharward comment-80739 2013-03-19T16:52:11Z 2013-03-19T16:52:11Z William, you wrote: "Solving the issue of homelessness shouldn't be a prerequisite for the success of downtown Sacramento . . . But we can identify the cause! The destruction of downtown housing . . . Our current epidemic of homelessness was the result." I agree that may be one of the causes, but one of several, not "THE" cause. It could be argued that other factors include deinstitutionalization. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html Keith Sharward 2013-03-19T16:52:11Z Neil Pople comment-80737 2013-03-19T16:41:28Z 2013-03-19T16:41:28Z As usual, Mr. Burg is the living breathing historian for us all! Thanks for sharing this with us, and all you're doing to show how Sacramento's core was once so vibrant (and CAN BE again)!!! Neil Pople 2013-03-19T16:41:28Z Keith Sharward comment-80735 2013-03-19T16:33:31Z 2013-03-19T16:33:31Z Technically, you could board the Capitol Corridor to Emeryville and then board a bus bound for San Francisco. ;-) Keith Sharward 2013-03-19T16:33:31Z DirtyDanSin comment-80725 2013-03-19T05:10:51Z 2013-03-19T05:10:51Z William's presentation was great, if somewhat rushed. 'Always leave them wanting more!' Least favorite comment had to do with convincing creative types from 'fancy' cities to move here. Most favorite comment encouraged those of us already here to improve our own skills and strut our stuff from porch to boulevard. I look forward to more forums. My skillsets include nonprofit management and board development, for the record. Hit me up! DirtyDanSin 2013-03-19T05:10:51Z William Burg comment-80724 2013-03-19T04:43:59Z 2013-03-19T04:43:59Z I didn't, but there are video links on the "live blog" story about the event. I'll do what I can to keep Sacramento Press readers informed about local history talks and tours--not just my own, but those by my colleagues. William Burg 2013-03-19T04:43:59Z