I'm sure most of you have seen the news that the Maloofs have walked away from the arena talks again. I do think the Maloofs want to be here, but they also want a very good deal as well
The latest worries me. It sounds as if the Maloofs want to turn the Railyards around the arena into another Natomas. I won't vote for a deal that sacrifices the plans for the Railyards, even if it is a small portion. From what it sounds like, the Maloofs want no competitive retail or restuarants within 1000 feet. I don't like that one bit.
The point of an arena in the railyards is to create a walkable entertainment district, not another suburban arena
Put it in Natomas if that is the case. I think that is where the Maloofs want it anyways. I'd take the vision of the railyards over another suburban arena that is just 5 miles closer to downtown.
Now the question?
Do they work out a last minute deal (again) for something in Natomas to keep the Kings?
OR
Screw the Kings and build an arena in the Railyards according to the plan we want?
The problem with #2 is there is no one major tennat and the city would be stuck with the operating costs where in #1 the Maloofs would paying for them, a major tennat that is paying on average 4M a year over 30 years and 20M cash. Also, I don't think Millennia would agree to drop all the housing, hotel and retail in the area. I think the Railyards is close to dead.
I would still vote yes for the tax increase because I think the money could be spent on many good things in Sacramento up and above the facility, but I would vote no on the other measure if the above plan is what they draw up.
___________________________________________________________________
Leaders will push ballot measure with or without the Kings
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 3:33 pm PDT Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Discussions between the city and county of Sacramento and the Kings owners over the terms of building an new arena in the downtown Sacramento railyard have stalled.
The pro-arena forces were left Wednesday with the very real possibility that they may be campaigning for a new sales tax to build an arena in the railyard without the Maloofs, owners of the local NBA franchise, on board.
"We still consider them part of our team, but it is our arena, and we will decide where it goes, and the public has said loud and clear that the best place for the arena is in the railyard," said Assistant City Manager John Dangberg, who has represented the city in talks with the team.
County and city staff members had committed to producing a memorandum of understanding with detailed deal terms by Oct. 6. But even if that document never materializes, the ballot measure to raise the sales tax by a quarter cent remains on the November ballot, Dangberg said. So does a companion advisory measure asking voters if they want to spend about half the $1.2 billion in new taxes on an arena and the other half on community projects.
Disputes with the Maloofs have centered on parking, the amount of land that will be set aside for the arena, and uses immediately surrounding it, said those involved in the negotiations.
Joe Maloof said Wednesday he supports the idea of putting a new arena in the railyard, but won't go along with it if it means it will put "the franchise in jeopardy."
Three major problems:
ReplyDelete1) Maloof Sports Entertainment wants 18 acres and atleast 3,000 surface parking spaces. They want atleast 8.5 acres for the arena, and the rest to be controlled by MSE for parking, retail and everything, IF anything else. Mind you that is directly from their mouths on live radio (KHTK 9.15 6:00pm). 18 acres is the entire Sports and Entertainment district in the Railyards materplan. They claim this was their previous agreement, and non-negotiable.
2) There are key two proponents in Measure Q's success. Maloof Sports Entertainment and the City of Sacramento. They do not agree publicly. Without united support, how can they pass a measure that has already divided the residents of this city and county?
3) Sacramento citizens do not understand, do not agree and do not support this deal. Sure, a select few do see a benefit worth fighting for... but Measure Q largely relies on trust of MSE and the city government. And recently, it's become hard to tell who to trust.
I don't know what else to say that wouldn't be an emotional reaction to the news. All I can honestly say is that I was a hard-core supporter of this measure - and now i am just sitting on the fence.
ok, the maloofs are trying to bring a suburban arena, to an urban development. that in itself pisses me off. they want complete control of parking, surrounding business?! that is BS!! the maloofs need to understand what the railyard project is trying to accomplish. i make this point...look at at&t park in San Francisco!!! somehow they managed to fit the best ballpark in america, in a super-compact urban environment. you walk across the street from at&t park and what do you got? restuarants, bars, cofee shops, stores...FUN STUFF!!!
ReplyDeleteSan Francisco has huge corporate sponsorship base to make up for the lack of parking money. Sacramento's the size of Salt Lake City, Memphis, and Indianapolis but with no corporate headquarters to help finance an arena effort… that’s a huge $$$ gap that the Maloofs have to fill from somewhere. They should let the Maloofs have their parking, just build the parking vertical like the rest of downtown.
ReplyDeleteIf the Maloofs want the 18 acres, I will give them a chance to tell us what they will do with the site. These guys are very good at entertaining at Arco arena and Vegas, so they may come up with something that is great.
ReplyDeleteIf they can create something with bars and resturants in a walkable enviroment around the arena, I'd be okay with them controling it.
I would first need a detailed vision for the area that doesn't including a suburban arena with surface parking lots
How about another Hart & Huntington. :)
ReplyDelete