Comments on: Sacramento subsidy could win Kings

By: Steve Mehlman

Steve Mehlman — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:07:05 +0000

“Come to Sacramento, you know, home to the great roads, fantastic sewer systems and wonderful city services”.

And I’m sure all you righties will support using tax money to fix the roads and sewer system and improve city services. LMAO!

By: Steve Mehlman

Steve Mehlman — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:03:33 +0000

C’mon Hondo, equating building an entertainment and sports complex in Sacramento with Penn State and Rutgers?
That’s lame even for you.

By: deception pass

deception pass — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:19:54 +0000

The Devils in the Details; that’s what I’ve thought since the arena deal was passed. I believe Sacramento is giving up way to much on this deal, and I really believe the Mayor is not doing his job, he was elected to do. He’s supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the Citizens of Sacramento, not his boy’s, in which I believe are going to make hundreds of millions of dollars on this deal. Not buying the Kings and building a new arena but from all the perks that have been given to them, “to get the deal done,” as KJ would say.

Its interesting theat Burkle ifs one of the land owners were the proposed arena will be built. Isn’t he the on pushing for the site, wasn’t he the one that flew to NYC, met with Stern of 2 hrs about his vision to build a new arena on his property. This guy is going to get filthy rich.

The Mayor is giving away 100 acres, just handing it over to his boy’s, and claiming its valued at 38 million (maybe I really don’t know, but doesn’t seem to add up to me). The mayor’s passion has pushed him over the top. His enthusiasm has corralled diehard fans and local media/papers to brush over some the facts, in which I hope will come out for public review sometime soon.

This is a bad deal, the city will ultimately end up taxing the Citizens of Sacramento to cover the short falls to service debt. It just might not be the right time for Sacramento, maybe the Mayor should realize that start planning to get the City’s finances in order.

By: Realist

Realist — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:40:16 +0000

jman: What will draw that younger generation is quality jobs, what will draw those employers is that infrastructure you talk about. The young ones will have no issue taking a party bus to see the Warriors to get their B Ball fix

By: Joe from Bronze Age

Joe from Bronze Age — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 16:48:15 +0000

Katy, great article. Please write a letter to the Bee to counter the imbecilic articles being published there in blind support of Boss KJ and his gang of five whales

By: jman

jman — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:14:14 +0000

Consider these two sales propositions:

“Come to Sacramento, you know, home to the great roads, fantastic sewer systems and wonderful city services”

“Come to Sacramento, you know, home to the world famous Sacramento Kings”

Now consider, which will draw the next younger generation of tax payers as opposed to the retirees who need their city services and road construction and city services paid for by the working class?

By: Dave Boz

Dave Boz — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:59:57 +0000

What a nonsensical inversion of the idea of ‘return on investment’ Steve Mehlman puts forth. If you give me a quarter-million dollar house, and in return I agree to build three more houses and sell them, how have you gotten any return on your investment?

Theoretically, Sacramento will realize some tax revenue from the additional investments of the developers – but only from the taxes on business activity that takes place. There is no projection that shows Sacramento generating in tax revenues even a significant fraction of its ‘investment’ in the arena. It is a giveaway, for the purpose of subsidizing the developers, and the basketball team owners and players.

This is why Gov. Brown wisely killed the redevelopment agencies. They are nothing but a vehicle for transferring tax money to private interests.

There is still no reputable economic study – none – that shows subsidies of sports arenas benefit the public. This palace will be no different.

By: Hondo

Hondo — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:14:21 +0000

The reason Katy opposes the sports industrial complex mindset that led to Penn st and Rutgers is that this takes money away from schools and health care and fixing potholes and govt obligations in general, the very things that the dems scream about not giving enough money too. Katy lives in Sac town and weaves among the pothole everyday. That is what govt is for. Pot holes. Not transfering taxpayre dollars to the billionaire owners and millionaire players pockets.
Independent studies show that these big public financed arenas only pay for themselves in the biggest of markets, NY, LA, Miami, ect. The taxpayers take up the slack in the smaller markets.
But what none of these studies show is that the best players avoid ‘non black’, small market areas. La Bron will never go to Portland or Seattle or Denver or Sac town, or the Miniapple. Sac town and Seattle will NEVER have a championship team in basketball. Ever. The Kobie’s and the La Brons and the Shaq’s and the Carmelo’s only go to the biggest of venues. They get far more off court advertizement dollars there, compared to small market Portlands and Sac town.
Once the fans see that their cities are relegated to being ‘farm’ teams for the bigger market bound players, then fan support goes way down. A Florida team in baseball is begging people to show up to the opening day game. They have no chance against the big market Yankees and the fans know it. They understand that their small market tickets to the game will never get a championship, it only lines the pockets of the unappreciative millionaire players. They have said many times, they get paid to play, not to win.
The bottom line is that unless there is a privately financed stadium, both Seattle and Sac town will loooose money in the long and short run.
Hondo…..

By: Steve Mehlman

Steve Mehlman — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:24:05 +0000

“The little government town that could.”

The secret’s out: The only reason Katy is rooting against Sacramento is because it is the seat of state government. If this were happening in any other community in any other state…like it is happening in Seattle as we speak…she would have no problem with it, even though the local government got involved to help get the deal done.

As I’ve said before, the bottom line of this proposed deal is that Sacramento will get a badly needed revitalization of downtown at an estimated value of more than $1 billion in return for an investment of around $250 million, without a tax increase. That’s a return of 400 percent on investment, which should be enough to make committed capitalists salivate.