Comments on: Sacramento arena: A ‘Field of Schemes’

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 03:38:57 +0000

Great point Richard. With pro golfer Phil Mickelson coming out recently about the high taxation in California, many sports stars will undoubtedly look at this.

California’s anti-business and anti-work policies are taking root.

Katy

By: Hondo

Hondo — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:03:04 +0000

stevefromsacto:
Stop hogging the pillow.
Yes I agree with you partially. The sports industrial complex is out of control and takes tax money from needed govt spending such as education, fixing pot holes, buying fire trucks, ect. Sports stadiums rarely pay their way and mostly they work in the biggest of cities such as LA and NY. In smaller markets they rarely turn a profit. It is simply corporate welfare.
Hondo….

By: Richard Rider

Richard Rider — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:33:10 +0000

Good luck getting any NBA stars to move to Sacramento in the future. No young guy wants to live there (ZERO glamour), and now the sky-high 13.3% CA income tax is a HUGE deterrent. In stark contrast, Seattle has ZERO state income tax.

The other big change is that, for a star making $2 million or more, the new 2013 federal law disallows 80% of the deductibility of any state income tax over 2 million income (and phases in before that). That change — coupled with the 29% Prop 30 tax rate increase — results in the 2011 NET CA state income tax rate rising an astonishing 83.6% NET in 2013.

Indeed, settle in for a stately decline in the quality of all CA sports teams — but especially in Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego.

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:25:54 +0000

In reply to stevefromsacto.

Steve: Your hero, Gov. Jerry Brown, ended redevelopment in 2011 in part because it’s always a scam to take property from real people, usually homes and small-business owners in “blighted areas,” and give it to rich developers. The previous owners are recompensed at a rate much less than the property is worth. Now you want to bring redevelopment back! Sacramento also is notorious for how redevelopment damaged its downtown area. You just want more of the disease.

Oh, and I got an “A” in every math class I ever took.

— John Seiler

By: stevefromsacto

stevefromsacto — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:39:31 +0000

If you look at the Sacramento proposal closely, it offers a potential of more than $1 billion in needed redevelopment and revitalization of its downtown area, at a cost of around $250 million, without raising taxes. For those of you who are math challenged, that is a potential of $4 earned for every $1 spent, or a return on investment of 400 percent.

It is ironic that you anti-government zealots now find yourself in bed with those who oppose the redevelopment plan because they think government should be spending more on things like education, health and welfare instead. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

By: Hondo

Hondo — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:37:36 +0000

Sorry about the typos. And I hope someone got that joke at the end.
Hondo……

By: Hondo

Hondo — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:35:34 +0000

The NBA will look at the economic viability of Seattle and Sac town and Sac town will be pushed aside. Seattle is a much bigger city and metropolitan area and their economy is in much better shape. The NBA will look at what the voters may do in an election and that may seal the deal.
I Seattle, Paul Allen (the Microsoft multi-billionaire) who owns the Seahawks, can easily underwrite any new stadium there with a smaller amount expected form the taxopayers.
But it is unlikely that Seattle, let alone Sac town, will ever be able to attract the biggest names in the sport, which means the chance of either town getting an NBA championship is the same as me making the roster on any of their teams. Hey, I have a vertical leap of nearly 6 inches (but it looks more like 8 to me).
Hondo…..

By: Sacramento arena: A ‘Field of Schemes’ | FlashReport

Sacramento arena: A ‘Field of Schemes’ | FlashReport — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:39:44 +0000

[…] see this story cross posted at CalWatchdog […]