2006-09-06 20:57:42 · 5 answers · asked by Nitz Frugent 6 in Travel ➔ United States ➔ Sacramento
Well it looks like I'm in the minority here but I am for it.
It is an investment for the region. No I do not see it as a giveaway to the Maloofs since Basketball only makes use of the arena about 30% of the time.
If the Basketball leaves Sacramento so will Arco Arena. If that happens Sacramento will loose out on many other events that citizens other than Basketball Fans enjoy. Things like Concerts, Ice Shows, and the Circus. Think about how much the .25% tax increase will cost you a year compared to what it would cost to once again have to travel to the Bay Area to enjoy these sorts of events.
I am not happy with the terms of the deal, I personally think the region should have paid 100% of the building costs, and leased back the center to the Maloofs. While being able to keep a share of the extras like parking and concessions.
Additionally a new arena would become the center piece of a much needed redevelopment of the old railyards.
No I am not a member of the Maloof team, I am just an average working guy that has the foresight to see that a new Arena is what this area needs now.
If the Maloofs leave, we are set back 20+ years here and may have no other option than to build a new arena with no private financing at all. Would that be a good thing?
2006-09-07 15:02:00 · answer #1 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Against.
It is basically gives away millions to the Maloofs so we can hopefully keep the Kings. We (Sacramento residents) pay for a $500 million (or more) Arena so they can have better box seats for rich ticketholders that live in Placer County. In addition, the Maloofs get all of the parking, concessions, and concert ticket revenue, while we get all of the maintenance and upkeep costs. The Maloofs only pay a flat rental rate of $4 million per year--which wouldn't even cover the property taxes for the arena. Last year they made more than $4 million on the parking at Arco, so they will rake in the cash without any risk at all. Even worse, they don't even have to keep the Kings in town, they get the master lease and they can keep the arena for concerts and still move the Kings to Vegas.
It is insulting that this is the best deal we could get. If the Maloofs move the Kings after this thing fails, I will help them pack.
2006-09-07 08:10:36 · answer #2 · answered by SFDHSBudget 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am totally against it. I think Arco is still perfectly sufficient despite what some people say about it falling apart. If the Maloofs want to keep them here in Sacramento and want a better stadium they should pay for it all. I am someone that does not watch sports and do not care if the Kings & Monarchs stay or go, I don't want my money to go to something I don't care to have in my city. Traffic is already horrible near the Arco on Truxel and not to mention the freeways get backed up. I don't even know where they want to put the Arena, but wherever they put it the traffic will be worse. No new Arena!!!! Let the Kings and Monarchs go to Vegas, good riddance.
2006-09-07 05:46:17 · answer #3 · answered by Jess 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed! Total;y against it but I feel bad for the Monarchs... they're playing really well and won a championship. Used to be a big fan of the Kings but not anymore. If the Maloofs care more about money, then go ahead- leave! They're rich.. they can pay for it.. it's not like our taxes arent high enough.
2006-09-07 14:09:35 · answer #4 · answered by snow_anh07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if they use the old Money Store building and put Joe Serna in the top.
2006-09-06 21:04:08 · answer #5 · answered by Pup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋