Politicians seek special enviro deal on arena

This is Part One of a two-part series.

March 30, 2013

By Katy Grimes

images-1

SACRAMENTO — The unusually speedy approval of a new NBA arena for the Kings basketball team in the heart of downtown Sacramento leaves many details and unanswered questions on the table, including how this arena project possibly will be completed and ready for opening by 2015.

Approved by the Sacramento City Council, the latest plan uses overstated revenue projections, grossly overstated projected attendance numbers and city-owned parking garages to sweeten the finances. As with all of the previous schemes to keep the Sacramento Kings in town in a luxurious arena, neither city officials nor local news media have ever performed due diligence to expose the questionable business deal it will be for taxpayers.

Local media have been cheerleading the project, with little criticism or analysis. It’s another typical government-involved project, with bad numbers, pie-in-the-sky plans, lots of hype and no accountability.

Impacts on the city

A project of this magnitude will impact downtown parking, local businesses, housing and commercial property prices, traffic congestion and even air quality. Projects a fraction of this size are required to comply with extensive state mandated regulations, including Environmental Impact Reports and the state’s California Environmental Quality Act.

Many say that, given how Sacramento officials have already rammed through the term sheet approval in record time, they will also try to ram the development process through, without giving residents and businesses the standard allotted time to question the process and project.  And given the California Legislature’s recent history working around CEQA regulations for politically favored projects, could city officials already be working to ensure this project also is exempted from the state’s strict environmental guidelines?

Sacramento CEQA exemption

I contacted Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to find out if he plans on sponsoring legislation for the Sacramento arena similar to AB 900 and SB 292, which were passed last year and streamlined the CEQA process for Los Angeles-area sports stadiums. AB 900 was a general bill and expires on Jan. 1, 2015.  But SB 292 specifically was targeted at the $1.2 billion stadium for downtown Los Angeles being sponsored by the Anschutz Entertainment Group.

“It will be up to the government to decide if the project falls under the AB 900 criteria,” said Rhys Williams, Steinberg’s spokesman.

But in a later phone call, Williams said, “No plan was in place to fast track the stadium through CEQA, unless the project meets AB 900 criteria.” Williams also noted that Steinberg authored AB 900.

I also contacted Sacramento City Manager John Shirey to inquire about a CEQA exemption for the arena project. Shirey was not available, but spokeswoman Amy Williams said she hand’t heard of anything involving CEQA exemptions for the arena project, and said she would ask others working on the project for the city. I did not hear back from Williams.

Interestingly, I also contacted Anaheim city officials. Anaheim was in the running two years ago to acquire the Kings. Part of their proposal was to increase the size of the Honda Center indoor arena. Ruth Ruiz, Public Information Officer with Anaheim, forwarded the city-led Environmental Impact Report summary which found the Honda Center would not fall under CEQA guidelines because the expansion was only intended to enhance the design and services offered at the arena, and would not increase the maximum seating capacity.

Unnecessary financial risk

Arena opponents are concerned that Sacramento is opening itself up to risk it cannot afford. Eye on Sacramento, a public policy watchdog group, compared Sacramento to Stockton, which filed for bankruptcy protection after spending tens of millions of dollars on an arena and other publicly financed facilities.

Others are concerned about the increasing number of government projects will continue to be exempted from California’s unusually strict environmental regulations — regulations which have killed many private sector projects.

Part Two of this two-part series will be on the stadium and jobs creation.

7 comments

Write a comment
  1. Lady
    Lady 29 March, 2013, 10:21

    More and more good old “sustainability” programs…this one clothed with a sports team.

    Reply this comment
  2. Lady
    Lady 29 March, 2013, 10:25

    This is all so much hogwash. Why should the city build a stadium for a professional sports team? That’s like saying, if a new Honda dealership wants to open it’s doors, the city should build it because it will bring business to town and will provide jobs.

    Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for any business – not a business they use or one that they don’t use. So my tax dollars are used to build a Honda dealership,yet,I might not like Hondas,anymore than I might like, a sports team and never plan on going to the stadium.

    We have all forgotten the purpose of government – to do things collectively that we can’t do individually, like build roads, fight wars, provide police and fire.

    Stadiums are private facilities and if the city ever needs to use them for public gatherings, they can rent them like anybody else. But making ALL taxpayers pay to build a business for somebody else – that’s ridiculous.

    Reply this comment
  3. PJ
    PJ 30 March, 2013, 11:37

    The bullet train will get the next exemption, I bet.

    Reply this comment
  4. Ian Random
    Ian Random 1 April, 2013, 00:21

    Imagine if they streamlined CEQA for everyone.

    Reply this comment
  5. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 2 April, 2013, 14:00

    So under this plan, the City of Sacramento will received a sorely needed downtown development and revitalization with an estimated value of over $1 billion for a cost of around $250 million, with no tax increase. That is a return on investment of 400 percent, which should be enough to make any capitalist weep with joy. But because it’s “govmint” doing it instead of some private entrepreneur, the anti-government zealots are screaming NIMBY.

    Lady, you need to understand: This is NOT just about the Sacramento Kings. It is about building a modern entertainment and sports complex for the citizens of the capitol of one of the largest states in the union. Indeed, the new facility will be in use an estimated 300 days are year or more, while the Kings play only 40 games at home each year.

    By the way, Lady, if you believe that one of the purposes of government is to provide fire protection, many of the anti-public service zealots on this site don’t agree.

    Reply this comment
  6. Steve Mehlman
    Steve Mehlman 2 April, 2013, 14:02

    Ooops, I almost forgot. Since I was “outed” by Richard Rider recently, I have no need to use my pseudonym any longer. So from here on out, I’ll use my real name. But unfortunately for Mr. Rider, my beliefs won’t change.

    Reply this comment
  7. Lee
    Lee 12 April, 2013, 22:11

    @stevefromsacto You’re dreaming if you think that a new arena will see 300 events per year. 300 dates a year is Staple Center territory. There is no way Sacramento will attract that many premium events with just an NBA team as an anchor tenant. Let’s be realistic. Arenas built with public funds are rarely profitable. These arenas and their funding schemes never meet the projected revenues. You only have to look at the new Yankee Stadium to see how the parking lot scheme could go bankrupt.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

School bond problems go far beyond LAUSD purchase of iPads

Gov. Jerry Brown’s skepticism about state assistance for local school districts’ construction projects appears to be primarily based on an

Will appeals court notice AG’s flip-flop on bullet train?

It took the California Supreme Court five days to unanimously reject Gov. Jerry Brown’s request that justices immediately consider a

Another East Coast liberal misjudges CA

April 1, 2013 By John Seiler California is such a complex state that it’s often amusing when East Coast liberals