STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said they filed the lawsuit against Sacramento City Council, the Sacramento city clerk,  and the city of Sacramento city over a decision to disqualify thousands of petitions that would have put the issue to a public vote on the June 3 ballot — a move many describe as government tyranny.

Jan. 24, the Sacramento city clerk announced that she rejected the petitions, along with 34,000 signatures, on the grounds some of the petition versions did not comply with election code.

“This is not a small number of people,” said Craig Powell, representing Voters for a Fair Arena Deal. “This is a significant contingent of Sacramento voters who’ve said ‘Let us vote.'”

Almost immediately after the announcement of the lawsuit, local Sacramento media reported the lawsuit is “by the group that doesn’t want the arena built.”

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal have said throughout the battle with the city, they are not opposed to an arena, and in fact are supportive of refurbishing the existing arena, or building a new one; they want the public subsidy of the arena project to be decided on by the voters of the city of Sacramento.

The attorney for STOP and VFAD said the errors the city clerk cited weren’t substantial enough to warrant disregarding 23,000 signatures, KCRA reported. “Nobody can claim they didn’t know what they were signing,” STOP attorney Bradly Hertz said.

“It’s really five mistakes that were really technical by the city clerk’s own admission, and (it is) almost silly that the city would rely on that as their way of trying to disenfranchise their voters,” said Hertz.

STOP is asking a judge to order the City Council to either adopt their petition, or place it on the June 3 ballot, and is hoping the matter will be heard by the Sacramento Superior Court immediately.

However, Judge Michael Kenny, the judge first assigned to the case, excused himself before a hearing in the case started, after it was revealed he had signed the petition to put the arena up for a vote, KCRA reported. The case was turned over to Judge Timothy Frawley.

Petition ‘errors’

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said the five errors that the city clerk originally cited are not “substantive” and were just technical errors. Members of STOP told me they had a top elections attorney in the state review the petitions, and were told they complied with the law.

“The4000, a group representing the new downtown arena plan, responded to Friday’s decision by saying, ‘For STOP, this has never been about a vote and democracy; it has always been about tricking voters and stalling the arena with a two-part vote designed to blow up the project,’” reported Fox 40 news recently

The4000 was created by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player, and the lead proponent to build the new arena.

“We all support the clerk and the city’s efforts to protect the public interest, especially given what’s at stake,” Johnson said in a statement.

Read all of CalWatchdog stories on the Sacramento Kings’ arena deal HERE.

Friday, the city clerk announced that she rejected the petitions, along with 34,000 signatures, on the grounds some of the petition versions did not comply with election code.

“Due to technical issues identified in the submitted petitions, I find the petition noncompliant with significant provisions of the California Elections Code and the Sacramento City Charter, and therefore insufficient to move forward,” Shirley Concolino, Sacramento City Clerk, said in a press release.

Yet, just last week, the Sacramento County Registrar certified there were enough verified signatures on the petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot.

The signatures were collected by STOP, Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork, and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal, to put the decision of whether a public subsidy for the new arena project downtown, should be on the ballot in the city of Sacramento.

“The4000, a group representing the new downtown arena plan responded to Friday’s decision by saying, ‘For STOP, this has never been about a vote and democracy; it has always been about tricking voters and stalling the arena with a two-part vote designed to blow up the project,’” reported Fox 40 news.

The4000 is a group headed up my Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player. “The downtown arena is an extraordinary, once-in-a-generation project with a profound potential to generate catalytic economic benefits for the downtown, city and region,” The4000 claims.

In the letter Concolino sent to STOP about her decision, she cited the nine different petition versions as being problematic. Concolino said even though the petition’s signatures are valid, they were gathered before STOP officially filed their notice of intent with the city clerk’s office.

Last week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Eugene Balonon issued a tentative ruling in the lawsuit targeting the arena deal orchestrated by Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star. It supported petitioners’ requests that they be allowed to depose Sacramento Councilman Kevin McCarty and Sacramento Economic Development Director Jim Rhinehart about undisclosed dealings between city officials and the new Kings ownership group to help it buy the team.

The Sacramento Investor Group, led by tech entrepreneur Vivek Ranadive, purchased Sacramento’s NBA franchise from the Maloof family in May.

Arena deal: Many key issues remain murky

The arena deal has prompted questions over the lack of public debate about key details, dubious financial numbers from the city and the public subsidy the project requires. Also, last-minute legislation by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would let the arena’s construction proceed without a credible environmental impact review.

Plaintiffs Issac Gonzalez, James Cathcart and Julian Camacho are members of Voters for a Fair Arena Deal. They hope to put the arena subsidy issue on the ballot in Sacramento.

Defendants, who include Johnson, City Manager John Shirey, Deputy City Manager John Dangberg and other city officials, have sought to keep the deal behind closed doors and off the ballot.

The lawsuit accuses city officials of making a secret deal to provide an extra $80 million of public money to help the investors’ group beef up its offer against a well-funded Seattle group that wanted to buy the Kings and move them to Seattle, which lost its NBA team to Oklahoma City in 2008. Plaintiffs’ attorney Patrick Soluri said city officials have committed fraud because they have not fully informed the City Council and the public about details of the deal.

The city subsidy, according to the lawsuit, is actually $338 million — not the $258 million the city claims.

In response, the defendants insist the information the petitioners seek is “undiscoverable, privileged information” and contend there was no secret deal. Defendants’ attorney Dawn McIntosh said in in a Thursday court hearing there is not even any formal agreement in place about building the arena in downtown Sacramento. McIntosh said the lawsuit was “a waste of everyone’s time.”

However, the City Council voted Tuesday of last week to begin eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property necessary in the development of the new sports arena.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs want to depose McCarty and Rhinehart because they believe the city officials have evidence about the city’s undisclosed subsidies. While Judge Balonon indicated in his tentative ruling last week that he favored authorizing a deposition of McCarty and Rhinehart, he also said he would issue his final decision this week.

Councilman McCarty opposes the city arena deal, and thus far, has not responded to deposition requests. I contacted McCarty several times for previous stories about the arena deal, but he did not return phone calls or emails.

Stall tactics until the deal is done

Deposition notices were sent to city officials in September. But according to Soluri, the mayor and city officials have engaged in various avoidance tactics, including filing numerous objections to deposition notices, rolling demurrers, and refusing to comply with a court order directing them to reschedule a further hearing. Soluri said these were stall tactics was designed solely to delay the inevitable discovery until after the city’s expected formal approval of the arena in April.

Those behind the lawsuit are not the only ones who think that Mayor Johnson and other city officials aren’t being honest about the real size of the public subsidy. Public policy watchdog Eye on Sacramento says that when all of the publicly owned assets being thrown into the deal are accounted for, the public’s contribution is actually $375 million — far higher than the city’s $258 million claim.

The city also agreed to give the arena’s private development group the city’s empty 100-acre plot next to Sleep Train Arena in North Natomas and six other city properties, five of them adjacent to or near the downtown arena site. City officials are also giving away the city’s parking lot at the site, and the revenue from parking meters, after claiming the parking lots have no value.

Beyond the legal challenge to the city’s deal, there is also a ballot initiative petition to require a public vote on any public subsidy for a professional sports franchise.  The petition signatures are currently being counted.

However, it appears Mayor Johnson and the City Council will attempt to moot the result of that vote by pushing up their approvals of the arena prior to the June vote that would thereafter require voter approval.  Approval of the deal and related bond sales were previously scheduled for summer or fall 2014.

Craig Powell, president of Eye on Sacramento, calls this “stealing the election.”

The files on the arena lawsuit are available on the Sacramento Superior Court website, case no. 34-2013-80001489.

There was no fast break at a recent court date concerning a suit by Sacramento activists opposed to tax subsidies for a new arena. The activists are Issac Gonzalez, James Cathcart and Julian Camacho.

CalWatchdog.com attended the Dec. 19 hearing before Judge Eugene Balonon, who was expected to decide the case one way or another. Instead, the judge postponed the hearing date out to Jan. 9, 2014.

Just before that date, the plaintiffs and their attorneys, Patrick Soluri and Jeffrey Anderson, hope to be deposing the defendants, Mayor Kevin Johnson, City Manager John Shirey, Deputy City Manager John Dangberg and other city officials. The deposition dates are on Jan. 6, 7 and 8.

“I think we are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel where we can actually start engaging in some serious discovery to obtain evidence to support the allegations we have made,” said attorney Anderson after the hearing. The attorneys said they are trying to force city officials and staff to reveal an alleged secret deal.

“We believe that will develop additional evidence that we can then take and do further depositions of other city officials and other document request,” Anderson said.

The lawsuit accuses the officials of making a secret deal with arena investors to provide an extra $80 million of public money to help an investors’ group beef up an offer against a Seattle group vying for the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team. Instead of a $258 million subsidy, as the city claims, the city allegedly was really going to deliver $338 million for the arena, according to the lawsuit. In the lawsuit’s wording from its May filing:

“Rather than risk a groundswell of public opposition that would be generated by accurately disclosing the combined subsidies for the arena and purchase of the Kings franchise, Mayor Johnson, Mr. Shirey and Mr. Dangberg determined that it was more politically expedient to simply misrepresent to the taxpayers the true value of the city’s subsidies.”

The entire case file is available at Sacramento Superior Court services.

Response

In response, Mayor Johnson, a former NBA player, the other plaintiffs and their attorneys insist the information the petitioners seek is “undiscoverable, privileged information.” According to a search on the Court website, they claim the discovery “is not permissible.” And they insist:

Solura said of the judge’s ruling on the depositions, “It informed the city that these stunts and tricks to prevent us from getting to discovery will simply not be tolerated anymore.”

The court documents tell the other side, that of the mayor and the other respondents, who maintained:

“Despite the pending demurrer, Petitioners began conducting discovery, but later conceded that their proposed discovery would not assist them in alleging a ripe claim. In light of this irrelevant discovery, respondents were forced to seek – and obtain – a stay of discovery pending its demurrer. A short time later, this Court agreed that the Petition did not raise a justiciable controversy but granted Petitioners leave to amend.”

Initiative

The court case also is competing on time with an initiative aimed at forestalling the arena. Gonzalez is the campaign manager for the group, Voters for a Fair Arena Deal. Reported the Sacramento Business Journal of the signatures the group gathered, “ ‘The overwhelming majority should be approved,’ Gonzalez said, pointing out another group involved in the effort, Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork, initially said they’d collected over 40,000 signatures, but the total submitted only ended up around 34,000. ‘There was an exhaustive scrubbing going on at the end.’”

The groups working for a ballot measure used a validation service before submitting the 34,000 signatures and think their valid signature percentage will be high, according to a recent Sacramento Business Journal story.

However, reported the Bee, “So far, the council has only tentatively approved the financing plan, and a vote on issuing the bonds won’t come until next spring. What isn’t known is whether the subsidy issue will come to a public vote in June.”

Public funds

The City of Sacramento’s approval of a term sheet on the arena deal “constitutes the illegal expenditure of public funds,” according to the lawsuit. Despite the city calling the term sheet “non-binding,” Gonzalez et al. argue the city has already “committed monies to the hiring of consultants and other services.”

Mayor Johnson and city officials approved the $447.7 million arena deal at the Downtown Plaza in March, insisting it was a public-private partnership, with the private contributions amounting to only about one-third of the deal.

The lawsuit also alleges the public subsidy will enrich the Sacramento Investor Group, at the expense to taxpayers. The Sacramento Investor Group purchased the Sacramento Kings NBA franchise.

In response, the mayor and other backers of the arena cite a city-sponsored study saying the arena will bring $7 billion in economic benefits to the city over 50 years. “That includes spinoffs such as sales at restaurants and hotels, as well as $6.7 million in taxes,” according to a Sacramento Bee story.

Sacramento’s publicly funded arena deal has been billed as “the largest redevelopment project in city history” in Sacramento, as CalWatchDog.com explained in an article.

Voters in 2006: ‘No’

However, for more than 13 years, there have been numerous attempts to gain city approval for a new, publicly subsidized arena. Sacramento voters even turned down two ballot measures in 2006 that would have approved a public subsidy through a ¼-cent sales tax.

In 2011, Johnson formed an “independent” non-profit group to develop the new arena. The “Think Big Sacramento” group conducted a bold public relations campaign to push the publicly subsidized arena plan.

But Johnson’s group turned out to be so closely linked to the Sacramento Kings organization, the Fair Political Practices Commission fined him $37,500 for his failure to report more than $3.5 million in “behest” payments from the Kings. According to the FPPC, “[T]hese payments are not considered campaign contributions or gifts, but are payments made at the ‘behest’ of elected officials to be used for legislative, governmental or charitable purposes.”

On the steps of Sacramento City Hall Tuesday afternoon, I witnessed members of “Our City — Our Vote” announce the formation of “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal,” to help an arena initiative qualify for the June 2014 ballot. The group said it plans to vigorously advocate for a fairer arena deal for the City of Sacramento and city taxpayers.

And they stressed they want an arena built — just not on the backs of the taxpayers.

“Voters for a Fair Arena Deal,” was formed amidst unanswered concerns about the pubic cost of the current arena subsidy plan, which will require payments of $25 million per year for 27 years after the initial 8 years of “interest only” payments.  The state recently prohibited school districts from using similar long-term “capital appreciation” bonds. Ahem.

The new group has filed registration papers with the Secretary of State and the Fair Political Practices Commission. They expect to get some financial help from nonunion building contractors who have been cut out of the arena deal by the Sacramento Kings owners when the unholy deal ensured the use of only union labor on the half a billion arena project.

The Sacramento arena deal, led by Mayor Kevin Johnson, has suffered from a lack of public debate, dubious financial numbers from the city, along with a growing public subsidy, and last-minute legislation by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to let the stadium avoid a real environmental impact review.

“The City’s attempt to suddenly speed up the schedule makes it appear they are trying to circumvent the public’s right to be heard,” said Susan Patterson, Sacramento city resident and former SMUD Board member, “that’s not how you build public confidence.  We need to move past the angry twitter wars and campaign stunts — that’s why we’re adopting Our City, Our Vote’s campaign ethics code at the same time.”

Too many politicians seem to have one thing in common — they all are always willing and eager to put taxpayers in more debt on ego deals the cities do not need, and cannot afford.

Non-union contractors offer help

Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said non-union contractors will likely donate between $15,000 and $25,000 to help mount the campaign, along with other donations.

Interestingly, the largest area electrical contractor qualified to do the work on a new arena is non-union. Rex Moore Electrical Contractors and Engineers would probably rather see a project allow free and open competition for all construction contracts, instead of going out of the city for contractors — especially if this arena project is all about creating jobs for Sacramento, as proponents claim.

The “deal,” known as a project labor agreement between private developers, the city of Sacramento, and one big labor union, happens when the government awards contracts for public construction projects exclusively to unionized firms.

According to Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, the Sacramento construction market is 85 percent union-free. In a September op-ed in the Sacramento Bee, Christian asked, “why would the owners agree to a PLA that will only make this project more expensive?

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction is a California-based organization dedicated to opposing project labor agreements. The CFEC called the arena PLA “a waste of taxpayer money and a payoff to unions to avoid baseless complaints and lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act.”

10 Principles of a Fair Arena Deal

By Katy Grimes

As the behind-the-scene negotiations take place between the NBA, the owners of the Sacramento Kings and prospective buyers, there is really only one thing to remember: everything is economic.

The top Kings player is paid more than $8 million. Wouldn’t he like to save a cool $600,000 a year in income taxes just by moving from Sacramento to Seattle?

Even uber-liberal HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher recently said he may leave California, due to the state’s high tax rate.

Basketball is big business

Sports franchises are multi-million dollar businesses.

Team owners and accountants spend a great deal of their time scrutinizing the finances. A move from the economically depressed Sacramento to Seattle is a hardly a conundrum.

As the Maloof family has suffered losses in their Las Vegas business ventures, unloading the Sacramento Kings, a generally losing NBA team, probably looked good.

Migrating businesses

The marginal personal-income tax rate for wealthy Californians  is 13.3 percent. Washington state has no state personal income tax. So after deductions and tax write-offs, the California state income tax on an $8 million NBA salary would be something like $600,000.

“According to migration data from the Internal Revenue Service, over the 15-year period from 1995 to 2010, King County, where Seattle is located, has gained $32 million in adjusted gross income from Sacramento County,” Forbes reported in January.

“Other California counties have added significant amounts to King County’s coffers, too,” Forbes reported. “During those same 15 years, Orange County lost $98 million in net AGI to King County. Los Angeles saw a huge hit, with King County gaining $313 million of Los Angelenos’ net AGI.”

As the negotiations continue, Sacramento officials seem only to be getting more shrill. The only way Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star player, can seem to attract and keep business is to promise millions of dollars in public subsidies.

But Sacramento taxpayers have already voted down a public subsidy.

Public subsidy is how the NBA plays

“The league and its players have enjoyed over $3 billion in public funds for new arenas since 1990 and sources tell PBT on the condition of anonymity that the league is sensitive to what a move out of Sacramento could do to future subsidy collection efforts by the NBA,” NBC’s Pro Basketball talk found.

“Any additional ammunition given to public subsidy opponents could impact the league’s bottom line much more than what owners would proportionately receive in a relocation fee, which some have guessed to be in the $30-$45 million dollar range.  The fee can be anything the league wants, and can be as high as the most recent franchise fee or franchise sale amount according to legal scholars at Loyola Marymount.”

Despite this “new norm” of publicly subsidized arenas, Mayor Johnson is spending money he doesn’t have. Cities like Sacramento just don’t have the money, and it is irresponsible and unrealistic of Johnson and the Sacramento City Council to claim tax revenue generated by a new downtown arena would pay for the subsidy. The numbers don’t pencil out.

“With opposition of public subsidies for sports facilities growing every day, sources say the league wants to avoid a situation in which Sacramento provides a “model offer” only to have their team taken away,” Pro Basketball talk said. “This would send a message to future cities that their long-term investments in the NBA are not safe, even if the city does everything reasonably expected of them.”

We can hope. In the meantime, can any public subsidy really take precedence over the high income taxes pro-ball players must pay to live and play in California?

“The Golden State’s new 13.3 percent income tax on top earners prompted golfer Phil Mickelson to say earlier this month he was considering a move, and according to the accountants who advise millionaire athletes, he was just saying what a lot of jocks were already thinking,” Fox News reported in January.

“They’re going to have an exodus of people,” said John Karaffa, president of ProSport CPA, a Virginia-based firm that represents nearly 300 professional athletes, primarily in basketball and football. “I think they’ll see some [leave California] for sure. They were already a very high tax state and it’s getting to a point where folks have to make a business decision as well as a lifestyle decision.”

By Katy Grimes

Sacramento could become known as the little government town that could. As Sacramento officials fight to prevent the Sacramento Kings basketball team from being lost to Seattle, the public subsidy the officials are offering is looking ridiculous — and unsustainable.

With its historical, abiding inferiority complex, Sacramento has long suffered under the absurdity and indiscretion of city officials who claim an economic rebirth will only occur if hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on a new sports arena. And they do this with blatant disregard of the voters’ unwillingness to spend public money on an arena or professional sports team.

If the competition to keep or get the Kings is about which city has the best public subsidies to curry favor with the NBA, Sacramento wins hands down over Seattle.

But as more details are bounced around in the Sacramento arena deal, it is becoming apparent Sacramento should lose in overtime.

Needling Sacramento

A story in the Seattle Times Tuesday confirmed just how far Sacramento will go to make the deal. “Take Sacramento’s $447 million arena plan. It was unveiled to the public and then passed by their City Council only three days later,” Times columnist Danny Westneat wrote.

“Can you imagine the reaction from the Seattle process factory if our mayor put forth a half-billion-dollar public-private partnership and wanted it approved in just three days?”

Westneat added, “But beyond the haste here’s what is in Sacramento’s arena plan. It’s 60 to 75 percent public subsidies, depending on who’s counting.”

Bowing to the masters

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, recently returned from a trip to New York City with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. They weren’t on a political junket, but went to the Big Apple to convince the National Basketball Association to allow Sacramento to keep the Kings.

Seattle, a city of 620,000, has 3.5 million in its metro area. Sacramento, on the other hand, has 470,000 city residents, with 2.5 million in the metro area.

The little government city that could…

Instead of getting down to the business of repairing Sacramento’s economy, along with its deep potholes, failing sewer system and diminished city services, Mayor Johnson, together with a team of city council members, has kept his eye on the basketball — at the expense of city business.

Sacramento City Councilman Kevin McCarty has been a vocal opponent of the arena deals, primarily because of what he says is an unsustainable public contribution. I called and emailed him to discuss his opposition, but he did not call back.

In a Sacramento Bee story, McCarty called the subsidy “overly generous” and warned it could “bring the city enormous misfortune if arena revenue doesn’t pan out as projected…. The risk outweighs the rewards.”

Show me the money

The Sacramento arena would not be getting so much attention if the arena deal was a purely private sector arrangement. In fact, private funding probably would bring it wide support in the region.

City of Sacramento officials claim the deal calls for $258 million of public taxpayer subsidy. A private investment group will contribute $189 million to the arena construction, and would be responsible for all capital improvements.

According to public policy watchdog group Eye on Sacramento, the deal actually calls for an additional $75 million of public subsidies that have not been counted by the city, or included in the city’s numbers.

Add this additional $75 million to the subsidy pot, along with Sacramento County’s public contribution, and the subsidy amounts not to a 53 percent public subsidy as city officials keep repeating, but is closer to a 75 percent public subsidy of a future sports arena.

Additionally, according to Powell, city officials would also receive control of a luxury suite in the new arena, and preferential VIP parking, “a perk that would cost taxpayers a total of $8 million, according to the findings of a noted sports facility economist.”

This is what’s known as padding a public subsidy, and creating a perk for city government staff.

Nuts and bolts, and luxury suites

To accomplish the development of the new arena and subsidy structure, the city plans to form a nonprofit corporation, which would own the parking lots and buildings. The nonprofit would issue bonds to finance the arena.

According to the city, the bonds would be repaid through city hotel taxes and other taxes and fees.

In a recent story, the Sacramento Business Journal explained where the rest of the city’s contribution would come from:

* Sacramento’s parking infrastructure fund: $1.5 million

* A rebate on sales taxes generated by the arena construction: $1 million

* Funds set aside for downtown development from the city’s share of proceeds from sale of the Sheraton Grand Sacramento: $5 million.

* Land transfers to the arena investors: $38 million. This would include 100 acres the city owns near the current arena in the city’s Natomas area.

But when the numbers are crunched, it appears Sacramento could have to dip into the general fund to make the payments on the bonds.

Hiding the numbers

Powell said that, as the deal was bounced by Sacramento officials only days before the city council vote, the city has been disguising the real numbers.  Parking revenues and the 12 percent hotel tax revenues are just not going to be enough to service this debt. That means the recently passed Measure U sales tax money likely will be tapped to service the arena bonds.

Measure U was sold to voters as a “temporary” half-cent sales tax proposed “to restore and protect City services,” according to the City of Sacramento. The sales tax measure was passed by voters, 64-36, in November 2012.

History repeats itself

After Sacramento Voters soundly defeated 2006 ballot Measures Q and R, which would have raised sales taxes to fund a sports arena, then-Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson continued to push like crazy to build an arena.

A back room deal was put together by Dickinson (now in 2013 a Democratic member of the state Assembly) and Steinberg. They hurried Measures Q and R onto the ballot, leaving voters only a few days to vote on the measures, which were missing crucial information in ballot explanations used by voters. Dickinson continued withholding the information until two courts overruled him. Steinberg and Dickinson also tried to get the measures passed by 50 percent simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote required for tax measures.

Voters killed the measures anyway.

Westneat is apparently floored at the audacity of Sacramento city officials. “But what’s most revealing is the public non-reaction in Sacramento,” he wrote. “One group, called Eye on Sacramento, called out the luxury suite as a sort of bribe — ‘one of the dirty little details of the arena deal.’ It got all of five paragraphs in the local paper and no obvious public blowback.”

“This is no normal business,” Westneat said. “It’s a cartel. And one thing we know from bitter experience is the NBA cartel likes its host cities a little desperate.”