Last Thursday, the Bee featured a story under the headline, “PAC pushes Sacramento arena vote but won’t say where it is getting money.” The story claimed that Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods, an Orange County-based political action committee, had been “working alongside a group of Sacramento activists gathering signatures for a ballot measure that would require voters to approve public subsidies for sports facilities.” According to the Bee’s version of events, the group wouldn’t disclose its funding.

The story of an out-of-town PAC secretly bankrolling the arena measure stirred hundreds of comments on the Bee’s website. It also spawned a formal complaint with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. There’s just one problem: It’s completely false, according to people close to the story.

“The truth is the PAC has $144.50 in the bank and has done absolutely nothing more than lend its name to a press release in support of the Arena vote petition drive,” said James V. Lacy, the principal officer of Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods, who also serves as publisher of California Political Review. “The Bee has manufactured this story in a deliberate effort to undermine the public’s right to vote on the arena deal.”

Thundering about campaign donations

The Bee asked the political action committee to release its donors since July 1, a move that isn’t required by state or federal law. The group declined to share such financial information with a newspaper that, it believes, has used its news and editorial pages to back the arena deal. There’s also a reason why the group hasn’t released its list of July donations — none exist.

“The PAC can’t release a list of donors because we haven’t received any donations since July 1,” Lacy said.

The organization’s claims are independently confirmed by the group’s latest campaign finance statement, which showed less than $150 in cash on hand. During the past six months, the political action committee has spent just $426 in bank fees and a nominal consulting fee.

“Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods hasn’t spent a dime on the Sacramento arena campaign,” Lacy said. “The PAC has not signed contracts for any petition circulation, has not circulated any petitions or raised any funds for that purpose.”

Lacy said that the group’s involvement in the arena campaign has been limited to one press release. When asked why the group issued the release, Lacy said, “Anytime taxpayers are the victims of an insider deal, we feel compelled to speak out.”

That hasn’t stopped arena supporters from using the Bee’s misleading story for its political advantage. On Tuesday, Joshua Wood, the principal officer of the DowntownArena.org, filed a formal complaint with the FPPC. The complaint is primarily based on the Bee’s articles.

Editors Note: Hrabe is research assistant for Jim Lacy’s upcoming book, “Taxifornia, How Liberals are Bankrupting California.”

By Katy Grimes

A wealthy Sacramento couple has offered to make one of the largest private donations in Sacramento history to create a natural history museum for the city. Naturally, an animal rights activist and city officials are freaking out.

Paul and Renee Snider want to donate their extensive personal collection of mounted polar bears, lions, rhinos, dik-diks, and other animals, some of which are rare, and build a nearly 180,000 square foot museum to house them. The museum would also be the new home of the California Auto Museum, which desperately needs an updated building.

But it appears the Sniders are being thwarted by the Sacramento Planning Commission, along with an animal rights activist who finds the project distasteful, despite the decades of charity work the Sniders have done for the Sacramento area.

And that’s the problem. Radical activists and the government officials who listen to them would rather kill a privately funded project than let thousands of others enjoy it.

The animal rights activist and Planning Commissioner

At a planning commission meeting last week, animal rights activists got the ear of Planning Commissioner Kim Mack, and challenged whether the city of Sacramento should approve the museum with the Sniders’ game animals in the same building as classic cars.

The Sniders have asked the city for permission to buy the land for $1.25 million, and will pay to build the new museum building.

“Some members of the commission confined their comments to discussions about the design of the new museum, while others opined on the necessity of reaching out to the community regarding the content of the new building,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “Mack addressed the issue more directly. ‘I think that bringing stuffed endangered species into the mix is dangerous to the reputation of our community,’ she said.”

Mack, a politically active Democrat, has close ties to Mayor Kevin Johnson, and helped run his first campaign for Sacramento mayor. Mack also managed a grassroots support effort in the region for the first Obama presidential campaign.

Mack has also been involved with Johnson’s Sacramentans for Accountable Government effort to put a Strong Mayor Initiative on the ballot, essentially giving Johnson more power.

When Mack was a City Council candidate, she took heat because emails in support of the Strong Mayor Initiative were sent to people on an email list that originated from an Obama campaign list. Mack came under strong criticism for providing the Obama campaign email list to the Sacramentans for Accountable Government group.

And then, after losing in the city council primary, Mack was appointed to the Sacramento Planning Commission by Johnson.

It pays to have friends in high places, regardless of credentials.

The animal rights activist behind the effort to kill the museum is Jennifer Fearing, a well-known Humane Society radical, and California senior state director for the organization.

“Destroying wild animals for the thrill of the kill, for trophies, and for bragging rights is anything but good for the world,” the letter to the planning commission from Fearing said, as reported by the Bee. “We share Renee Snider’s awe of the ‘beauty of wildlife,’ but feel that awe is best shown through shooting them through lenses, not gun barrels.”

“The two-page letter also says the city would be selling valuable riverfront property too cheap, and suggests the attractions at the museum would be unlikely to draw many visitors,” the Bee said.

“A hybrid auto/dead animal museum seems unlikely to generate enough foot traffic over time to be sustainable. We also question the rationale for the city selling this property for $1.25 million — which seems an exceptionally low price for such valuable property,” Fearing said.

Fearing and the Humane Society are behind many of the anti-gun, anti-hunting bills in the California Legislature. One of their bills, AB711, would have unnecessarily banned lead ammunition for all hunting in California, but was killed in the committee process. Fearing and her cohorts are responsible for the recent ban in California on bear hunting with dogs, hunting using trapping, and the name change of the Department of Fish and Game to the Department of Fish and “Wildlife,” which most people questioned.

The Sniders

Several years ago, Paul and Renee Snider had offered to build a smaller history museum on the campus of California State University Sacramento, but were forced to give up that idea when members of the CSUS faculty became unhinged at the idea, and heavily protested the offer.

However, and quite ironically, it was CSUS officials who had previously facilitated the permission from the government of Tanzania needed for the Sniders to hunt exotic animals in that country.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive.

Paul and Renee Snider are well-known as Sacramento’s first couple in charitable giving. There isn’t a charity in town unfamiliar with their selfless kindness and generosity. Renee Snider has been on the Board of Directors for decades of the River Oak Center for Children, where I first met her. The Sniders have donated millions of dollars to River Oak Center, helping to provide group homes, education facilities and care facilities for children needing behavioral health and mental health services.

I’ve been to the Sniders’ home and have seen the amazing museum wing with the animals on display. I sat on a local charitable board with Mrs. Snider. They are very generous and good people, but are being maligned by people who have no idea who they are, or of the many charities to which they give their considerable money and time.

The auto museum

The California Auto Museum is worth a visit. It has fantastic collections of cars, but could use an updated, climate-controlled building. The last time I visited, I saw Gov. Jerry Brown’s old 1974 Plymouth Satellite, from his first term as Governor of California in 1975, and took the nearby picture of it. These days, Brown has plenty of Capitol police escorts to drive him around.

Despite the kindness and generosity with which the gift of the museum is intended, because some froth at the mouth at hunting and hunters, the enjoyment so many others could be killed. A history museum and a new auto museum would be wonderful for Sacramento, and could be a place of learning as well.

By Katy Grimes

The NBA cheerleaders at the Sacramento Bee are giddy with excitement today. Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson announced during his State of the City address Thursday that the Sacramento Kings are here to stay, and will get a new downtown arena.

“The Mayor announced that 24 Hour Fitness founder Mark Mastrov has agreed to make a bid to buy the Sacramento Kings to keep them from moving this year to Seattle,” the Bee reported. Johnson also announced “grocery billionaire Ron Burkle and the owners of the Downtown Plaza have agreed to team with the city to build a downtown arena.”

The plan all along has to build an arena downtown despite public outrage. The other part of the plan has always been for the Mayor and his people to figure out a way for the arena to be publicly financed. That they can’t sell it to Sacramento voters seems to be of little concern to them.

The Bee reported:

In a statement issued just after the mayor’s speech, Todd Chapman, head of JMA Ventures, the company that recently bought the Downtown Plaza shopping mall, said he is thrilled that Johnson, Mastrov and Burkle have put together a bid for the team, and said his company is excited to participate. But he stopped short of saying his company had fully signed on yet.

“We are excited to continue our discussions with the Mayor, City Manager, Mark Mastrov and Ron Burkle about how Sacramento Downtown Plaza can be a new home for the Kings’ organization,” Chapman said. “Our goal has always been to create a dynamic center for the city in the heart of Sacramento, and an arena for the Kings at Sacramento Downtown Plaza would certainly be a fantastic addition.”

The mayoral announcements should trigger several weeks of intense lobbying by both Sacramento and Seattle, culminating in an NBA vote on April 18 on whether to ratify the deal the Maloof family has struck with Seattle.

Could this just be more wishful thinking by the Mayor who thinks that Sacramento is nothing without a professional sports team?

What’s really going on?

Johnson is also still pushing for a change to the city charter to make the Sacramento Mayor an “Executive Mayor,” and not just one of nine votes on the City Council. His latest plan is actually a very good plan.

But Johnson can’t have both – he is undermining both plans by supporting the other.

Taken individually, the sports arena and Executive Mayor system are large, complex issues. Taken together, one spells disaster for the other.

Here’s the problem: Politicians are always surrounded by ‘yes’ people. Their groupies build them up, and keep telling them how great they are, and that everything they propose is a winning idea.

Sacramento Sports Complex

No one is apparently telling Johnson that the latest arena scheme is a real stinker. Sticking city residents with higher parking costs just to pull money out of city-owned parking lots is nothing more than an arena tax. And taxpayers know it.

Sacramento taxpayers emphatically voted down the arena proposals five years ago. Since then, savvy voters have only become more wary with the ensuing arena deals.

But what most people don’t know is that the arena deal is being pushed by the NBA.  A story published on the NBA’s website demonstrated this: “Sacramento is a relatively small NBA market and the aging Power Balance Pavilion where the Kings play lacks many of the profit-boosting features seen in newer arenas, such as a variety of premium seating options that command higher ticket prices. In addition, the state capital lacks large corporate operations, which have helped other cities finance arenas, like the Staples Center in Los Angeles or the United Center in Chicago.”

Sacramento already has an arena, albeit “relatively small” and aging. Sometimes it sells-out, sometimes it doesn’t. That’s more of a team problem than an arena problem. A bigger luxury arena would not sell more tickets to see the Kings.

If Sacramento had a consistently-winning all-star NBA team, the games could be played in an rickety old arena, and it would be to sell-out crowds. The fans are fans of the game, not luxury boxes and flowing champagne.

However, the NBA wants the fancy arena, with more expensive luxury boxes for big corporate sponsors. The NBA wants fancier digs, highfalutin vendors… and higher ticket prices. And they want Sacramento to put up some of the cash, or shut up.

“The economic downturn has left few politically viable sources of public money in California. And Sacramento voters in 2006 overwhelmingly rejected a sales tax increase to finance an arena,” the story stated.

It’s all about the image for the NBA. It’s economic for the NBA – and not for Sacramento. All that Sacramento will get is higher ticket prices, and higher downtown parking costs. That should really help the dilapidated downtown mall and struggling K Street shop owners.

If the city council agrees to the ridiculous parking deal, chances are that some businesses will decide that they no longer need an office in the downtown. My monthly city parking lot costs $145. If the parking lot sale goes through, monthly parkers like me will probably get stuck with $200 parking bills. Shoppers will be hit with the higher parking costs. It’s a penalty to downtown employees, and translates only as an arena tax. Higher costs like parking come out of taxpayers’ bottom line, and only serve to dig deeper in our pockets.

$145 a month for parking may sound low for San Francisco and Los Angeles, but this is Sacramento – we are not parking near a thriving business district or Tiffany’s, Neiman Marcus, Saks and Barneys. Sacramento’s Downtown Mall shoppers can choose from 12 eyebrow threading stores, Macy’s, movie theaters, a food court, Payless Shoes, and  a Hyundai showroom. And the Westfield Mall is for sale – it is apparent that the mall owner gave up a long time ago on the sad mall.

Executive Mayor 

The Executive Mayor plan has been modified four times. This latest plan is a good one and probably needed, after the recent redistricting shenanigans orchestrated by city council members. It was a gross abuse of power, for which they should have been recalled.

Johnson’s idea of a strong mayor is worthy. “The Checks and Balances Act of 2012” still proposes the mayor as chief executive, responsible for the budget proposal, chooses a city manager, and no longer will have a voting position on the city council.

The mayor would also get limited veto power.

The biggest change in the latest version of the executive mayor proposal is the Mayor will no longer have the power to hire and fire city officers, city attorney and city clerk, and will not be able to hire and fire department heads – those powers would remain with the city manager. Proponents say that this is the most significant change and brought balance to the plan.

The plan adds in a sunset date to automatically revert back to the mayor-council system should voters not like the new system. This is a good safeguard, without having to advance a campaign to make the change back. But if voters are happy with the new executive mayor system, they can reaffirm it.

The Executive Mayor/Checks and Balances Act :
*  Separates power: mayor and council have separate and different roles, each is accountable to voters – makes the mayor the chief executive of the city, rather than the city manager;

* Realigns authority: mayor’s role becomes more administrative, but council has authority of approval – Would have a City Council President preside over council meetings, rather than the mayor, so he does not have to manage the minutia at the weekly meetings;

* Streamlines responsibility: more direction comes from the mayor, more direct accountability for successes and shortfalls;

* Concentrates efficiency: mayor is executive branch, council is legislative branch, each with ways to “check” and “balance” the other;

* Would create an Independent Redistricting Commission;

* The mayor would propose a budget that gets approved by the council.

Two two public policy professors recently discussed the Mayor’s plan at a Metro Chamber event. Dr. Barbara O’Connor from CSU Sacramento, and Professor Robert Benedetti from University of the Pacific, said that the mayor should be the “chief negotiator” of the city, and should be available for leadership decisions, rather than the day to day city council meetings. They said that the Mayor’s focus should be as “aggregator for the city’s vision and use the bully pulpit to set the tone for the city pursue bigger ideas.”  Both professors felt that the changes in this proposal would be helpful in increasing transparency and accountability, and address the public’s distrust and distaste for government.

The current proposal can be found here.

Mayor Kevin Johnson already has his hands full with the city charter change, and should remain focused on this. He needs to sell this latest version to voters, who are already leary of the plan.

Throwing the arena deal into the fray will only lead to more of the distrust and distaste for local government felt by Sacramento voters, as well as probable defeat.

If arenas are such a good investment, Johnson could stand up to the NBA and tell them to find funders. It’s obvious that no one wants to pay for the arena, including taxpayers and city residents.

The history is there to prove that arenas are losing financial deals for cities. Sacramento is already running a serious deficit; giving up the parking lot revenue is foolish, particularly knowing that any new arena will lose its luster within 20 years. While the next round of city officials will be screaming about needing another new or upgraded arena, the leaseholders of the city’s parking lots will be enjoying their lucrative 50-year lease. It’s a short-sighted, bad deal for city residents and for the city, and proof that city officials see their roles on the council as terminal – they’ll be long gone by the time this all falls apart.

FEB. 20, 2012