About Me

Name: Katy Grimes
Email: fetchingjen@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

‘World-class’ Sacramento deal dead

April 15, 2012

By Katy Grimes

Ding, dong, the arena deal is dead. The free market won.

Despite the failure of 13 years of efforts to build a publicly funded new sports arena in Sacramento, the-arena project-which-wouldn’t-die may have finally croaked–thanks to Mayor Kevin Johnson, City Councilman Rob Fong, and state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

But according to taxpayers, it’s good riddance.

Sacramento politicians have repeatedly tried to force a publicly financed arena deal down the throats of the taxpaying public, as well as on the privately-held team owners. But this time, they crashed and burned.

With overstated revenue projections, grossly overstated projected attendance numbers, and practically giving away city-owned parking garages to sweeten the finances, neither city officials nor local news media ever performed due diligence to expose the bad business deal it would have been for taxpayers. Media was in the bag, along with rabid sports fans–at any cost. It was a typical government involved project, with bad numbers, pie-in-the-sky plans, lots of hype, and no accountability.

It was reported over the weekend that Steinberg was angry over the deal. “Regardless of where you stand on the arena the facts are clear: The city stepped up and the Maloofs did not,” state Senator Darrell Steinberg said in a statement. “Sacramento deserves partners who will live by their word. I stand with the Mayor and the city to do everything possible to protect Sacramento’s interest. I hope the NBA and its owners do not allow this kind of bad behavior to occur without consequences. I look forward to meeting with Mayor Johnson and city officials to consider next steps.”

Since when does a politician get to threaten a private business?

Negotiations finally ended this week. The Maloof family, the owners of the Sacramento Kings, pulled out of the latest nearly $400 million arena complex deal on Friday.

What finally killed the deal was the team owners, because the money they would have to put in the deal would come out of their pockets. The city and the politicians, who love to sound like big guys when negotiating, weren’t investing any of their own money. And it showed.

Sacramento Kings’ record hasn’t been consistent

The Sacramento Kings have a spotty record. Some years they are hot, and some years, not.

The failed arena plan needed to happen. Perhaps if the economy was healthy, and Sacramento was in-the-black, and infrastructure was in good shape, and city services were not cut back, and if Sacramento didn’t need a new sewer system, road and street maintenance, good public schools, and no cutbacks in Sac police department, area residents might have been remotely open to the idea.

But most of the public was not in favor of it. Sacramento already has an arena. However, it isn’t fancy enough for the city leaders, who have a predilection for spending money that isn’t theirs. At issue for Sacramento’s politicians was the number and size of the luxury boxes the Sacramento arena has. But how do politicians know so much about luxury boxes? Other than Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star who made his own way, why do politicans have a say in luxury boxes?

When was the last time a politician paid for a ticket to a NBA game, much less for luxury boxes, which range in price from $2,500 to $10,000 per game?

This Dog Don’t Hunt

Sacramento politicians tried very hard to shove a square peg into a round hole. And never did they once consider that the team is privately owned… they tried over and over to dictate terms of new arena plans to the Maloof family.

The Maloof family was exceedingly patient for the process, even with the regular lectures from city council members and media about the need.

The Maloof family dealt the final blow to the deal, reminding everyone negotiating, that they were the owners of the team, and that a great deal of the of the funds would come from their private holdings.

Writing Checks With Taxpayer Funds

The Maloofs played along, until last week when they finally hired an economist who explained a few things to them:

* The 2005 revenue projections weren’t realistic or feasible;

* The lease agreement with AEG was based on faulty attendance projections;

* The new collective bargaining agreement had revenue sharing;

* Other NBA team owners told them not to do the deal and instead, focus on getting a better team;

* There was no other private money in the deal;

* and, the deal would have sunk Sacramento deeper into debt… even to the edge of insolvency.

Other People’s Money

Politicians get used to spending massive amounts of other people’s money. That’s not news. But when they start negotiating in “public-private” deals, politicians are way out of bounds, and operating way out of their leagues. Most politicians have no idea how private businesses operate, and treat the deals they make as if there is an open, limitless checkbook.

The Sacramento arena deal was negotiated by numbskulls, who clearly did not care or want to know the ramifications of the deal.

The abomination of the deal was local media, completely in-the-bag every step of the way. I expected sports writers and reporters to be supportive of a new arena. But the lectures from television news anchors, and newspaper columnists was unprofessional.

Sacramento had already killed a previous deal to publicly finance an arena, and the Sacramento Grand Jury rendered a very stern opinion about this: “Sacramento’s previous arena deals have been totally discredited by the Sacramento Grand Jury  after voters refused to pass  Measures Q and R, which would have approved a quarter cent sales tax increase and directed the revenues to fund a new sports and entertainment facility,” I wrote in Sacramento’s Stimulus Arena.

Titled, “The Kings and City and County of Sacramento: Betrayal in the Kingdom?” the Grand Jury investigated the arena issue because they wanted to find out “if the City and County of Sacramento deceived their citizens regarding their dealings with the Kings.”

The answer was a resounding “yes.”

But it didn’t stop there.

“Sports proponents continue to promote the ideology that Sacramento can transform to a ‘world class city,’ by building an arena and keeping the Kings,” the Grand Jury wrote. I’ve been critical of the level of world class city desperation by Sacramento officials and elected politicians for many years.

World class cities are not created with sports teams, and Sacramento is no different.

The Sacramento Kings have not sold out their games for many years. The demand is not there. But supply and demand are not high on the priorities lists of Sacramento politicians.

“Without demand, the arena project will not bring more jobs to our city that are not already here. The only new jobs that may be created will be more union jobs to build the structure, which will be obsolete and out-of-date before any of the loans are paid off, or before any of the interest is paid back to the city by the Maloofs,” I wrote.

In 1997 the city loaned the Kings $78.5 million. The loan has not be repaid. The Maloof family already has its hand full, as does the city, which needs to focus on some very real fiscal issues. Politicians need to stop acting like impetuous children and start being the leaders and stewards they all claim to be.

The arena deal was nothing more than a sweetheart deal with labor unions for jobs. And  Steinberg’s fingerprints were all over it. Today’s politicians know that they will be long gone when the bills come due; Steinberg, Fong and Johnson included.

Perhaps if he economy was in better shape, it might have happened. But Sacramento would be no better for it, and certainly not on the way to ‘world class city status.”

Fortunately, the free market won out this time leaving politicians with egg all over their faces. Supply and demand are basic economic principals which the Kings’ owners obviously get. Now maybe the Maloof family can get back to work on the team, and on  paying back the $70 million they owe the city.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sacramento Stimulus Arena

April 4, 2012

Katy Grimes

It’s getting tiring pointing out that while Sacramento burns, the City Council is fiddling.

At the city council meeting last evening, several council members questioned whether Joe and Gavin Maloof, the Kings’ owners, were serious or not about partnering with the city on the arena deal. Blah blah blah blah.

The team said earlier in the week it has no intention of paying its share of pre-development costs on the $391 million project, the deal worked out a couple of weeks ago.

The council finally agreed, on a 7-2 vote, to move ahead with a $200,000 cost for pre-development work required for the arena development, as long as the NBA also agrees to fund the Maloof’s portion of the funds.

It’s only money

Despite the failure of numerous efforts in Sacramento to build sports facilities with public money, the-arena project-which-wouldn’t-die keeps getting life breathed back into it by Mayor Kevin Johnson, with the assistance of Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

It reminds me of the High-Speed Rail deal–it doesn’t matter whether I think rail is cool or whether I will ride it. The only question is who is paying for the $98.6 billion price tag–which is more than California’s entire state budget.

Sacramento’s previous arena deals have been totally discredited by the Sacramento Grand Jury  after voters refused to pass  Measures Q and R, which would have approved a quarter cent sales tax increase and directed the revenues to fund a new sports and entertainment facility.

“In an effort to obtain public financing, Sacramento City and County of Sacramento officials agreed to put the matter on the November 7, 2006, ballot as Measures Q & R” the Grand Jury wrote. “The ballot measures as written were a blatant attempt to avoid the provisions of Proposition 218 in that Measure R was listed as a general tax (requiring a majority vote) and Measure Q was for distribution of the monies from the tax. Combined, they would have represented a special tax requiring a two-thirds vote.”

Titled, “The Kings and City and County of Sacramento: Betrayal in the Kingdom?” the Grand Jury investigated the arena issue because they wanted to find out “if the City and County of Sacramento deceived their citizens regarding their dealings with the Kings.”

The answer was a resounding “yes.”

Why?

“Sports proponents continue to promote the ideology that Sacramento can transform to a ‘world class city,’ by building an arena and keeping the Kings,” the Grand Jury wrote. I’ve been critical of the level of world class city desperation by Sacramento officials and elected politicians for many years.

World class cities are not created with sports teams, and Sacramento is no different.

The Sacramento Kings have not sold out their games for many years. The demand is not there.

Without demand, the arena project will not bring more jobs to our city that are not already here. The only new jobs that may be created will be more union jobs to build the structure, which will be obsolete and out-of-date before any of the loans are paid off, or before any of the interest is paid back to the city by the Maloofs.

In 1997 the city loaned the Kings $78.5 million. The loan has not be repaid.

World Class What?

In a 2009 op ed for the Sacramento Bee, I wrote that the best definition I have found of a world-class city comes from Seattle journalist Bill Virgin, who tracks business and economic trends. He writes, “World-class business cities are those where strategic and tactical decisions are made on everything from new plant investment to developing new markets and products. They’re the cities others watch and react to. World-class business cities are not guaranteed exclusivity in producing the next wave of influential products, technologies and companies – but they’re a more likely incubator for them. And those products, technologies and companies are where new jobs come from.”

Sacramento is not strategically, tactically or decisively developing new markets or products, or putting in new plants for any industry. In fact, businesses are fleeing the city and the state. Politicians instead are obsessively focused on vanity projects, to the detriment of the other crucial segments of the economy.

World-class cities are not driven by how many restaurants you have downtown or how big your sports arena is. The big cities with the Fortune 500 businesses and companies are business friendly and defined as “world class.”

With Steinberg’s fingerprints all over this deal, it’s clearly nothing more than a ploy to provide union jobs.

Today’s politicians know that they will be long gone when the bills come due; Steinberg and Johnson included.

The Grand Jury report concluded, “The City and County of Sacramento keep pandering to the Kings. The Kings are going to make whatever business decision they are going to make.”



link to CalWatchdog:  http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/04/04/sacramento-stimulus-arena/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mayor Kevin Johnson’s Big Plans May Backfire

cross posted at CalWatchdog.com 

Katy Grimes: Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson has made no secret of the fact that he’d like a big, beautiful new sports arena in the city.

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 websitedemonstrated 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

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »