Unfortunately, though many cities have done this, this is why it's actually more expensive: 1) You can't expand to add another level of luxury boxes (all arenas these days have 2 rows of luxury boxes - they bring in the most revenue) 2) The walls of Arco are only so wide. The already slim concourse around the arena can't possibly be expanded without knocking down 2 walls and a roof. 3) The dressing rooms for entertainers (whether they are Britney Spears of the Kings) are already way small. 4) The pipes for icemaking are laid in concrete and need to be ripped up In essence, you'd have to knock down 2 walls and a roof to do this, and you're basically starting over. The Kings would have to play in Oakland for 3 years or Memorial Auditorium (which seats maybe 3000), which would kill revenue. We don't have the luxury of having old arenas nearby. I'm not sure where people get this "least cost" option. None of this takes in to consideration that you don't want to pay for it either - you'd rather shoot down a great plan that's paid for. As for downtown needing housing - it already has housing. Not sure you have been to downtown on a weekend or weekday night lately but it's a ghost town (everyone is in midtown). It needs something to kickstart an entertainment district. The Railyards is where it needs to be. It's next to the train stations, right off the freeway, and oh yeah... it's paid for.

Is Arco going to be adequate in 10 years? If they got this arena deal done, it will be 2015 before it opens. "Good enough" is not "good enough" for NCAA tournaments and major music acts like Beyonce - and that's today. Do you think Arco will still be "good enough" in 2020?

1. Arco hosts 300 events a year, 42 of them are Kings games. You do the math... just go to Ticketmaster and search Arco Arena; you'll soon see the Kings games are in the minority (and this is basketball season). I don't understand how people always conveniently forget about 250 events a year - this argument has been beaten to death. 2. The CalExpo area will be sold to developers, who often pay for many acres of land that won't be developed for many years (long term investment). The State Fair will not be moved quickly, as they have to wait for new fairgrounds. Your commentary on traffic/infrastructure, the railyards have been planned out for many years, it's part of Sacramento's master plan. 3. The fairgrounds money would likely come from the sale of the land. Keep in mind there is an existing arena and practice facility which already can be repurposed. A lot of the state fairgrounds are all temporary structures as it is. The new fairgrounds cost would not be that high when you factor in the existing buildings. 4. Not sure, but I imagine this is something that is not going to hold things up. 5. First of all, this proposal doesn't factor in who pays for it... however the guts of the building are not adequate to be rebuilt. They'd have to tear the whole thing down to start over because Arco was really build very cheaply. 6. Part of the deal factors in the loan, and the Maloofs would make good on it. If they signed a 30-year lease they'd be on the hook for 30 years. That's how a lease works. I wish people would quit trying to be so quick to poke holes in things... it's practically a free arena, people! You should be super-excited about the prospect of what this could mean to Sacramento! I know I am.

cool idea... this is the future of journalism!

My dad inspired me to say "Who purpled"... he thinks the word "fart" is too crass for his vocabulary, but he'll be quick to point out when someone passed gas. Thanks to him, I won some tickets! Woo!