|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 13, 2013 2:41:36 GMT -6
Sacramento arena petitions delivered as city discusses debt plan Posted on December 11, 2013 by Neil deMause All kinds of micro-news in the Sacramento Kings arena deal: ◾ Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal delivered more than 35,000 petition signatures to City Hall yesterday. If 22,000 of those are validated, Sacramento voters will cast ballots next June on the Kings arena plan. ◾Sacramento’s debt issuance plan for the arena has been released. I just skimmed it and didn’t notice any significant new news, but it’s long and technical and has lots of tables with tiny type; I’ll give it another read later and see if anything else jumps out. ◾A report by a health care consultant (yeah, I don’t get it either) commissioned by a Sacramento city councilmember says that the arena deal won’t be any worse than some other deals, but could force Sacramento to dip into its general fund, but maybe not that much? I can’t actually find the report, but given that Sacramento Business Journal says it also cites “Memphis’ and Kansas City’s new arenas as net positives for their cities,” I’d rate its accuracy as questionable anyway. [UPDATE: The report is here. By "net positives" it actually means that in Kansas City and Memphis, the cities raised enough new taxes (mostly hotel taxes) that the arenas aren't going into default or dipping into the general fund. Yay?] ◾The Kings have revealed that their “minimum asking price” for naming rights to the new building is $120 million over 20 years. Which is a nice ask, and they might get it, but as anybody who’s sold anything on eBay knows, you don’t always get what you ask for. Or in this case, you might get it but only by kicking in other rights (additional ad boards, sponsorship rights, whatever) that would make the deal more valuable to your sponsor. www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/12/11/6400/sacramento-arena-petitions-delivered-as-city-discusses-debt-plan/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 13, 2013 2:43:36 GMT -6
However.... The deadline to turn in arena petitions was today, and anti-arena group S.T.O.P. delivered 35,000 signatures to city hall in an attempt to get the arena on the ballot. S.T.O.P. (aka Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork) today filed 35,000 petitions at City Hall in an attempt to put the arena to a public vote. The initiative movement needs about 22,000 valid signatures to be successful. If it is successful, an initiative will be put to a public vote in June of 2014 to make all arena subsidies require a public vote. If that is successful, then a vote on the Downtown Arena plan would take place in November of 2014. First, the signatures have to clear though. KCRA's David Bienick says that the last three petition drives in Sacramento had about 61-79% rate of valid signatures. Also, Crown Downtown and Region Builders themselves have filed 15,277 petition withdrawal forms, which also need to be validated by the City Clerk. Names on S.T.O.P.'s petition will be removed if they also signed one of the petition withdrawal forms.
As most of you will know, S.T.O.P. received the largest portion of their funding ($100,000) from Chris Hansen, the man who tried to buy the team from the Maloofs and move it to Seattle.
We won't know for a few weeks whether the initiative has enough signatures to qualify for the June ballot. In the meantime, there could be other challenges to the petition drive, most likely from the Mayor's office. Stay tuned. www.sactownroyalty.com/2013/12/10/5198156/sacramento-downtown-arena-petition-drive
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 13, 2013 11:30:18 GMT -6
lol this situation is comical
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 15, 2013 2:54:31 GMT -6
BMO Harris Bradley Center showing its ageAt the 25-year-old BMO Harris Bradley Center, rust is working its way through metal exit doors, some of the key mechanical systems are as old as the building itself, the seats are wearing out and parts of the glassy atrium roof leak. Steve Costello, president and CEO of the BMO Harris Bradley Center, said the building, the home of the Milwaukee Bucks, Milwaukee Admirals and the men's basketball program at Marquette University, is a "senior citizen." "It is becoming more and more difficult to maintain the building — and a stable fiscal position — amid the challenges that we face," Costello said. Despite the facility's age, there is no consensus on what to do about the BMO Harris Bradley Center. On Friday, the 48-member Cultural and Entertainment Capital Needs Task Force will meet for the first time to discuss not only the future of the arena, but the region's other major attractions. No specific funding plan has emerged, and no decision has been made to overhaul the arena or build new. But opposition to the notion of a regional tax to build a new arena is already in place. Already, the county boards in Racine and Ozaukee counties have gone on record in opposition to a regional tax. On Dec. 17, the Waukesha County Board is expected to take the same position. A tour this week of the arena's innards showed wear and tear in key mechanical areas. Costello said that over the next five to 10 years, $25 million to $40 million in major capital repairs will be needed. That's on top of $1 million needed in routine annual maintenance, he said. Costello spoke as BMO Harris Bradley Center officials released the arena's financials for the fiscal year ending June 30. The center reported operating revenues of $20.7 million, up from $12.6 million in the previous year. Costello termed the higher operating revenue a one-time occurrence, especially given a "soft" year for concerts at the facility. That higher revenue came about because of $3.9 million from a state grant, strong support from the business community ($20 million over six years) and a full Bucks season, including playoffs. In the previous year, the Bucks played a partial season because of the NBA lockout. Instead, Costello pointed to a $5.2 million drop in cash in fiscal 2013, driven largely by $4.9 million in capital spending to maintain the building. Total cash available went from $9.42 million to $4.22 million. During the tour, Costello noted much of the building's original mechanical equipment is still in place. Two 500-gallon water heaters that provide hot water to the 550,000-square-foot facility have extensive rust near the bottom. In the chiller room, the staff is using the same equipment that came with the building in 1988. The arena's chillers use a refrigerant that is no longer permitted to be manufactured or sold in the United States. Existing supplies of the refrigerant can be recycled or reused for use in older systems like the ones at the arena. "It's indicative of the fact we are managing old systems," Costello said. Greg Peterson, the building's director of operations and project management, knows firsthand the challenges of keeping the Bradley Center in working condition. But, he said, replacement parts for aging equipment are scarce. Outside, the lead-coated copper roof is surrounded by a gutter system. At each corner of the building there are rubber roofs with concrete pavers. Those pavers are breaking up in places and, in one location, the concrete more closely resembles gravel. At some of the arena's exit doors, rust has worked its way through the metal. The deterioration could be a threat to fire safety and security, Costello said. And that soaring atrium glass that greets visitors? It's beautiful to behold, but in some places it leaks and needs to be constantly maintained, Costello said. Next door, the parking structure the BMO Harris Bradley Center bought is going to need $1 million in repairs in the near future. Inside the arena, a few hundred seats — at a cost of $150 to $200 a seat — must be replaced every year. Costello said the center's main tenants — the Bucks, the Milwaukee Admirals and Marquette University's men's basketball team — rely on everything working on game days. "We want to hit our marks," Costello said. "But you have to be ready for the unexpected." Costello continues to market the BMO Harris Bradley Center. The arena bid for the NCAA Frozen Four, the premier event in college hockey. The arena did not get the tournament, and Costello said he was told it was because there were too many more modern facilities around the country. Other highlights of the BMO Harris Bradley Center's financial report. ■ The Bucks received tenant revenue of $5 million in the fiscal year ending June 30. ■ As of June 30, the BMO Harris Bradley Center had $7.5 million of BMO Harris Bank debt, down from $8.1 million the previous fiscal year. The BMO Harris Bradley Center also owes the Bucks $10.6 million from previous years, down from $11.6 million in fiscal year 2012. www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/bradley12-b99161742z1-235467301.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 15, 2013 2:57:18 GMT -6
Waukesha County leaders back stance against tax for Milwaukee arenaMembers of Waukesha County's Executive Committee on Monday recommended to the County Board that it oppose any imposition of a regional tax to finance the construction of a new Milwaukee arena. The vote was 7-0. The full County Board will consider the resolution at its Dec. 17 meeting. The Waukesha County resolution also opposes any regional tax for possible renovation of the Wisconsin Center convention center or "any other cultural or entertainment venue in Milwaukee." The move echoes other resolutions passed by the county boards in Racine and Ozaukee counties. Washington County has not taken any action. Herbert J. Tennies, chairman of the Washington County Board, said Monday his board would wait for further information coming out of the new 48-member Cultural and Entertainment Capital Needs Task Force before taking a stand. That task force will meet for the first time on Friday. It expects to spend a year reviewing the capital needs of the various cultural and entertainment institutions in the region and come up with recommendations. The action by county boards in Ozaukee, Racine and Waukesha counties is a pre-emptive strike of sorts in opposition to a regional tax. No governmental body, state legislator or local elected official has suggested that a regional tax to finance the construction of a new multipurpose arena or improvements in other cultural or entertainment facilities be put in place. But there has been speculation that the 0.1% Miller Park stadium tax, put in place in 1996 and collected in Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Milwaukee and Racine counties, could be extended. Extending the sales tax would be difficult. The tax must first satisfy all outstanding financial obligations to pay off the Miller Park stadium debt. And the state Legislature would have to pass new legislation. Milwaukee County Chairwoman Marina Dimitrijevic said Monday that, in her view, Milwaukee County voters in 2008 voted on a measure to beef up funding for parks, transit, paramedics and to lower property taxes. The advisory referendum was approved by a margin of 52% to 48%. Then-County Executive Scott Walker opposed the measure. "Milwaukee County has a long, proud tradition of being a major supporter of parks, recreation and the arts," she said in a statement. "However, we cannot do it alone. These regional assets need regional support from our partners." Dimitrijevic, a member of the new panel, said she would seek feedback from residents on a future course of action. She plans two open "Coffee & Culture" chat sessions. One will be at the Milwaukee Public Museum on Jan. 6, and the other will be at the Cafe Calatrava coffee shop at the Milwaukee Art Museum on Jan. 7. www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/waukesha-county-leaders-back-stance-against-tax-for-milwaukee-arena-b99159837z1-235101601.html
|
|
|
Post by Lions67 on Dec 15, 2013 13:58:12 GMT -6
you certainly have your eye on all things municipal when it comes to pro sports Mike. you do a fine job.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 16, 2013 23:04:27 GMT -6
Thank you very much.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 16, 2013 23:05:33 GMT -6
Bucks owner says new arena vitalBucks owner Herb Kohl wants to add to the team's ownership group in hopes of building a new arena that he said would cement the team's long-term future in Milwaukee. Kohl said Monday he hired a firm to help in the search for new partners, and that any new partners who are added will have to be equally committed to keeping the team in Milwaukee.
"I like to believe that bringing in new ownership ... if it's done in the right way, will reinvigorate the franchise and make our future in Milwaukee stronger and more secure," he said.Keeping the team in Wisconsin's largest city would require a new arena to replace the 25-year-old BMO Harris Bradley Center, also home to Marquette basketball and the Milwaukee Admirals of the AHL, he said. " Without new investors and without a new facility, would we at some point lose the Bucks? Yes," he said. Kohl, who recently retired after four terms as a U.S. senator, bought the Bucks in 1985. The team is frequently mentioned as a candidate for a move because of the age of its arena, but commissioner David Stern said Kohl's decision shows he is dedicated to preventing that. "With this announcement, Sen. Kohl continues his mission: to assure continuity of Bucks ownership by broadening its ownership base, and assuring that the fans of Wisconsin will enjoy NBA basketball and other events in a new state-of-the-art facility," Stern said. Kohl and Stern both said Kohl bought the team with the goal of keeping it in Milwaukee, and that remains a priority now. Kohl said he hadn't identified possible partners yet, and that the process was only in its infancy. When asked whether he'd consider taking on a partner who demanded a majority stake, Kohl said it was too early to commit to specifics. Kohl, 78, said he's in good health, but he knew he needed to plan for the organization's long-term future. He also said he was willing to contribute some of his own wealth toward the cost of a new stadium, and he hoped to secure private funding as well. If that happens, the team would have a firm private-sector commitment that could provide a convincing case for the public to finance the rest, he said. Kohl noted that Miller Park, where the Milwaukee Brewers play, is a fine facility but one that serves as little more than a baseball-only venue. And Lambeau Field, home to the Green Bay Packers, is also a one-use facility. But the BMO Harris Bradley Center hosts 200 events per year, including concerts and family events, so a new stadium would benefit the entire community, not only the Bucks, he said. Reporters asked whether potential partners would even want to invest in a team that couldn't consider a new area outside of Milwaukee, or in a team that's struggled to be competitive in recent seasons. Kohl replied that his team is profitable and its value has risen along with the values of every other NBA team. He declined to say exactly how much his team is worth. At 5-19, the Bucks are the worst team in the NBA. But Kohl said they're a part of the community -- a part of his community -- and he wouldn't let them leave, even though he knew the franchise could be worth far more in a larger city. "It would be a big loss for this community if we lost our NBA franchise," he said. "That would be a huge step backward, for not only Milwaukee but the surrounding communities. "I don't want to see that happen. And so this asset is not for sale outside of Milwaukee." espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10147250/milwaukee-bucks-herb-kohl-seeks-add-partners-arena
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 14, 2014 2:55:26 GMT -6
More trouble in Sacramento Breton: Weasels in the arena dealDid you hear about the “secret deal” between the city of Sacramento and the Kings? It’s supposedly a backroom, off-the-books, under-the-radar, “sweetener” that was cooked up secretly between city officials and Kings owners. It would secretly provide hidden subsidies from the city to the Kings for the purpose of secretly making the Kings owners financially whole for “overpaying” to buy one of the worst franchises in the NBA. Oh, and it’s a secret. At least until a lawyer suing the city began trying to bring to light his secret source of this secret information: City Councilman Kevin McCarty. Yes, the same McCarty who is running for the state Assembly; the same McCarty who has been a consistent “no” vote against using a large subsidy to help build a downtown arena. It’s unusual in the extreme because you don’t often see a city councilman as the potential star witness for parties suing the city he represents. Whether he wants to be in this spot or not (we don’t know because he ain’t talking) Councilman McCarty is potentially undermining the legal position of his own city. In a few days, a Sacramento Superior Court Judge could rule that McCarty can be deposed by Patrick Soluri – a lawyer suing the city for allegedly concealing details in a proposed $448 million downtown arena deal. This whole thing is a sideshow of weasels doing weasely things, but there could be some public value to this. It would be beautiful if McCarty would be compelled to deposed because it would force him go on the record – something he is loath to do unless he calculates it can help his Assembly bid. For a long time, McCarty has had a clear path to standing up and being the most legitimate voice against the city’s efforts to finance the $448 million arena with a $258 million subsidy. The anti-arena side has desperately needed someone with McCarty’s standing as an elected official to bolster the debate over the wisdom of the arena subsidy. Right now, the pro-arena side can easily disregard the anti-arena contingent as a bunch of old folks who were nowhere until they got hundreds of thousands of dollars in support from outside donors seeking to mess with the Kings owners and the city. But besides his “no” votes on the arena, many opportunities afforded McCarty to be a stand-up guy have been followed by a big “no comment.” Why? Because a stand-up person taking on the arena subsidy would have to oppose business, labor, a majority of the City Council, the Sacramento-based leader of the state Senate and many in the public. It would take real guts and principle to oppose these forces out in the open. So you can count McCarty out. Instead, we get Soluri filing a court document to compel McCarty to be deposed. A story Thursday by The Bee’s Tony Bizjak stated: “(Soluri’s) lawsuit is based in part on phone conversations McCarty had last year with Soluri and Isaac Gonzalez, a Sacramento resident who opposes the city arena subsidy.”
Bizjak reported further: “In a separate filing with the court, Soluri said McCarty called him last year and told him ‘that hidden in the term sheet (agreement between the city and Kings) was a secret subsidy intended to reimburse the Kings investors for the fact that they were “overpaying” for the franchise.’ ”
According to Bizjak’s story, Soluri maintains that McCarty instructed him to obtain the emails of Jim Rinehart, Sacramento’s development director. They would supposedly show that the city undervalued city land being given to the Kings as part of the deal.I asked John Shirey, Sacramento’s city manager, if there was anything to this secret deal. “No,” he said. Vice Mayor Angelique Ashby? “No,” she said. Councilman Darrell Fong has also consistently voted against the arena subsidy, so surely he must know something about this “secret subsidy.” “I don’t know anything about it,” he said Friday. Given that he is not on the pro-arena bandwagon, I asked Fong what he thought about a councilman potentially consorting with a lawyer suing the city. “I don’t want any part of that,” Fong said. It’s easy to understand why. You expect elected officials to sometimes be in the minority of controversial votes and to continue fighting for their side. It’s how they fight that separates the stand-up elected official from the weasel. The prospect that McCarty was driven by his opposition to help gin up a lawsuit against the city takes being a political weasel to a whole different level. Maybe McCarty says in his deposition that Soluri has it all wrong and that he didn’t aid a lawsuit against the city. We won’t know until he does. But if you oppose the arena and support what Soluri claims McCarty did, ask yourself this: Wouldn’t you rather have your public officials oppose a project the right way – in public, on the record – rather than sneaking around and putting self-interests over all? If your answer is the ends justify the means, then God bless you. But if that is your answer, then you forfeit the right of complaining about political leaders disappointing you. You can’t decry weasels while supporting them when it suits you. www.sacbee.com/2014/01/12/6064347/breton-weasels-in-the-arena-deal.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#mi_rss=Our%20Region
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 19, 2014 0:23:08 GMT -6
Arena subsidy opponents gather enough signatures to force a public vote, elections office saysThe arena signatures have been counted. Now get ready for the lawsuit. The citizens’ group fighting the $258 million city subsidy for the new Sacramento Kings arena cleared a major hurdle Friday by surpassing the minimum number of signatures needed to put the issue on the June ballot. After weeks of checking and cross-checking, the Sacramento County registrar of voters said Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork had obtained 22,498 valid signatures as of Friday’s count, surpassing the 22,026 needed. But it was all but certain that the issue will go to court before it reaches the voters, if ever. Mayor Kevin Johnson, the Kings and their political allies stepped up their demand that Sacramento City Clerk Shirley Concolino reject at least some of the signatures because of “glaring errors” in the wording of STOP’s petitions and other alleged violations of the elections law. “Given the legal stench wafting off these petitions, we believe it is critical for the city to protect the public by making sure that the flawed petitions are rejected,” said a statement issued by The4000, a political action committee founded by Johnson and led in part by Kings President Chris Granger. In addition, Granger and the mayor issued separate statements in support of the arena project. Even as it celebrated its achievement, STOP acknowledged that it hasn’t yet qualified the subsidy issue for the ballot. Its lawyer Brad Hertz said whatever problems exist with the petitions, they’re minor, but he said the organization was ready for a legal fight. “We hit the mark and we are very gratified,” said STOP co-founder James Cathcart, who led the months-long petition drive. “The city clerk still has to validate. We will see what happens there. ...We have to be prepared for some legal issues.” STOP argues that the subsidy, tentatively approved by the City Council last March, is too costly. Concolino suggested she will closely scrutinize the petitions for any defects. “The city clerk has the responsibility and sole authority to accept or reject petitions per the (California) election code and the Sacramento city charter,” she said in an emailed statement. “Regardless of how many signatures are deemed valid, the final certification of the election lies with the city’s elections official, the city clerk.” The county still has 715 signatures left to check before all the petitions are turned over to Concolino, probably next week. She has until Jan. 28 to decide whether the petitions pass muster. Then come the legal fireworks. If the clerk rejects some petitions, and STOP falls back below the 22,026 threshold, the taxpayers’ organization will surely sue. If she doesn’t reject any petitions and certifies the question for the June ballot, she will likely be sued by arena proponents – although it wasn’t clear if litigation would come from the Kings, the mayor or some other entity. Either way, a date in court is practically a foregone conclusion, said Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento lawyer and expert on the initiative process. Given the complexities involved, “that’s really where it should go,” he said. Hiltachk, who has examined The4000’s written demands to the city clerk, said STOP’s petition campaign appears legally flawed in several ways. Among other things, he said, the official notice published in June in the Sacramento Observer newspaper – a requirement before petitions can be circulated – left off the names of the backers of the initiative. He said courts tend to frown on ballot initiatives that don’t disclose who’s behind the petitions. “They’re arcane requirements, but they all have an important component,” he said. “There’s some wiggle room, but your failure to comply ... cannot undermine the objective of the law.” Hertz, however, said that despite some flaws with the petitions, STOP had achieved “substantial compliance” with the election laws. The organization was ready to defend the petitions in court, the STOP lawyer said. “The voters have spoken,” Hertz said. “The courts generally give great deference to that.” Johnson released a statement questioning the “integrity of these ballot petitions” and said the city would “consider all of the available options to protect the public.” The mayor and his allies continued to hammer away at STOP’s signature-gathering methods. They noted that Chris Hansen, the hedge fund manager who tried to lure the Kings to Seattle earlier this year, secretly donated $100,000 to the petition drive by funneling it through a Southern California political operative. Hansen was fined $50,000 for violating California disclosure laws, and STOP’s founders have said they didn’t know Hansen was the source of funds. Meanwhile, Adam Silver, the incoming NBA commissioner, plans to attend a Kings home game Feb. 5 against Toronto, a source with knowledge of his visit said Friday. The source insisted on anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss Silver’s plans. It’s expected that Silver, who takes over as commissioner Feb. 1, will meet with team and city officials about the proposed $448 million arena at Downtown Plaza. Building the new arena is considered crucial to cementing the Kings’ long-term future in Sacramento. The NBA board of governors in May rejected a deal by the Kings’ former owners, the Maloofs, to sell the team to the Seattle group led by Hansen. But the league gave the new owners, led by Vivek Ranadive, until 2017 to complete the new arena or face the possible loss of the team. The current timetable calls for the arena to open in 2016. www.sacbee.com/2014/01/17/6080890/as-arena-fight-heats-up-new-nba.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 19, 2014 0:29:49 GMT -6
This is badly falling apart for Sacramento. The bottom line is the subsidy is too much and the owners need that because they paid a Seattle price for the Sacramento market which you can't do. If Seattle comes through this summer with the new arena I expect Sacramento to play 1 more lame duck year in Sacramento then move to Seattle for the 2015-16 season. I expect the NHL to announce a 2 team expansion in the summer of 2015 with Quebec getting a team for the 2016-17 season(1 year after the new arena opens) and Seattle gets a team when the new arena in Seattle opens.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 25, 2014 3:15:48 GMT -6
Good news for Sacramento. They aren't out of the woods yet however. Lawsuits to follow. Clerk rejects petitions for arena voteThe campaign to force a public vote on Sacramento’s downtown arena plan was dealt a considerable blow Friday, when the city’s top elections official rejected the measure for “major” legal flaws and ruled it should not appear on the June ballot. City Clerk Shirley Concolino ruled that petitions circulated by Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork (STOP) and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal contained numerous violations of state and city elections code. Those deficiencies included the omission of key legal language on the petitions and differences in how nine different versions of the petitions were worded. “ I’ve never seen a petition with as many flaws as this one,” Concolino said. After expressing confidence for weeks that their petitions were valid, representatives and attorneys for both organizations did not respond to Concolino’s ruling for seven hours. In a news release late Friday, the group said it was “disappointed but not tremendously surprised” by the decision, given that city officials are the key proponents of the arena plan. STOP said it was evaluating its legal options. “This is a very dark day for democracy in Sacramento,” the statement read. “The city clerk is trying to use a small number of minor and insignificant printing errors in the initiative petition to disenfranchise Sacramento voters.” The groups had collected 22,938 signatures from city voters, seeking to place a measure on the June 3 ballot which, if passed, would require voter approval of public subsidies proposed for professional sports facilities. If that measure passed, it would likely result in a second vote in November on the city’s plan to contribute $258 million – most of it from revenue bonds backed by fees from parking spaces – to a planned $448 million arena at the Downtown Plaza. Arena boosters applauded Concolino’s decision. “If this was an NBA game, (the ballot measure groups) would have been ejected for the equivalent of flagrant fouls by this point,” said Joshua Wood, executive director of The4000, a political action committee aligned with Mayor Kevin Johnson that supports the arena plan. “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.” The mayor said in a statement that the clerk “takes very seriously her responsibility to protect the public” and that STOP “omitted key pieces of information (on the petitions) required by voters to make an informed decision.” “As I’ve stated before, given the 4,000 jobs, the transformation of downtown and our ability to keep the Kings all at stake, I’ve had serious concerns about the integrity of the process and the underhanded attempt to subvert and trick voters with misrepresentations, hidden money and misleading petition language,” the mayor said. Chris Rufer, an agri-business executive who donated $45,000 to the petition drive, said he was disgusted to hear that the petitions were disqualified “by a few language things.” “It’s just insulting the intelligence of the Sacramento citizens,” said Rufer, who lives outside the city limits in Sacramento County but was one of the initiative’s biggest donors. “Obviously, the citizens that signed this petition knew what they were doing.” City officials said they remain on track with the arena, which is scheduled to be completed in 2016. Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said city staff plans to seek City Council approval April 1 of an environmental impact report and development agreement for the arena. City officials then plan to sell bonds to finance the project in May and begin demolition of Downtown Plaza soon after. “We have not moved any of the major milestones, and it hasn’t been influenced by any of the issues around the petition drive,” Dangberg said. “We will stay on that schedule unless other factors external to the financing and development of the project dictate.” Dangberg declined to say what external factors could change the schedule, or whether a June vote specifically would cause the city to back off of a May bond sale. In rejecting the ballot measure, Concolino said the wording differences in some of the nine petition versions was minor, but that others contained “substantial” changes. In a flaw that affected all of the signatures, Concolino said STOP failed to include an enacting clause on any of the petitions. That clause notifies signers of an initiative petition that the measure being proposed will be enacted into law if passed by the voters. Concolino said signatures were gathered on petitions that omitted an entire paragraph from a notice of intent the measure’s supporters filed with the clerk when they began gathering signatures. Those petitions also included “entirely new language” that did not appear in the notice of intent, as well as statements ending in incomplete sentences. The clerk said 6,719 signatures appeared on the petitions with those differences. Rejecting those signatures alone bumped STOP well below the number needed to qualify the measure for the ballot. Another 105 signatures were gathered before STOP filed its notice of intent. In another misstep, when proponents of the STOP measure published their notice of intent in the Sacramento Observer newspaper, they omitted their names and signatures, the clerk said. A notice of intent informs local elections officials and the public that a group plans to collect signatures for a ballot measure. The law requires that it be submitted to the City Clerk and published in a general circulation newspaper. The copy submitted to the clerk by STOP contained the required names and signatures of the proponents, unlike the published version. City Attorney James Sanchez said he “would be shocked” if Concolino’s decision was not challenged by the ballot measure groups, given that lawyers representing the campaign have sent correspondence to the attorney in recent weeks dismissing concerns raised by pro-arena groups on the petitions’ legality. Sanchez said he thought “it could be a close decision,” but that he was confident the city clerk’s decision to strike the measure from the ballot would be upheld by a judge. “At the end of the day, the clerk felt as though she had the integrity of the process at risk with the inconsistencies and the issues she raised,” Sanchez said. “I think those factors would sway a decision-maker,” such as a judge. Jessica Levinson, an election-law expert at Loyola University in Los Angeles, said courts tend to interpret the petition requirements strictly. “You have to dot your i’s and cross your t’s,” Levinson said. “Just because people signed (the petitions) doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the provisions.” She said courts have upheld decisions by city clerks to reject petitions over wording issues. “There is absolutely case law that says, ‘This might sound picky, but we have these provisions for a reason,’ ” she said. Fred Woocher, a Santa Monica lawyer who deals with initiative cases, said the law “lays out some very explicit requirements.” In one case, Woocher’s client had petitions rejected by a clerk because the notice of intent was published in the wrong newspaper. The court sided with the clerk. Woocher added that he isn’t surprised that Sacramento’s clerk rejected the STOP petitions, simply because clerks have almost no discretion in these cases. “The clerk was on solid ground,” he said. Still, other legal observers said the courts may interpret the discrepancies pointed out by Concolino to be insignificant. “If the discrepancies are minor, they tend to be excused,” said Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at UC Irvine. In one notable case, a judge threw out a 2005 redistricting initiative championed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger because the language submitted to the state elections officials differed from the actual petitions. But the state Supreme Court overturned the decision, ruling that the differences were insignificant. www.sacbee.com/2014/01/24/6098755/sacramento-city-clerk-rejects.html#storylink=cpy
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 25, 2014 3:21:36 GMT -6
Kings buy site for downtown arenaAfter seven months of negotiations, the Sacramento Kings have bought a mall that sits on the site of a planned $448 million arena. The Sacramento Bee reports the team finalized the deal Thursday to buy Downtown Plaza from the San Francisco-based development firm JMA. The newspaper says the purchase price wasn't available, but documents filed with the county show the Kings borrowed $35 million from Goldman Sachs Bank in connection with the transaction. The filing says the NBA approved the borrowing. JMA will continue the management of Downtown Plaza and will partner with the Kings on the design and development of the project. In addition to a new arena, the property will include office towers, a hotel, housing and retail. The arena is scheduled to be completed in 2016. espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10343715/sacramento-kings-buy-site-downtown-arena
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 12, 2014 20:19:54 GMT -6
Adam Silver: Seattle's hopes on holdIn his first official days on the job, NBA commissioner Adam Silver is holding to a stance that the league is not ready to add an expansion team in the eager and deep-pocketed Seattle market. "Seattle is a wonderful market. It would be very additive to the league to have a team there," Silver said in an interview this week with ESPN. "But we're not planning on expanding right now, so it's not a function of price."Silver's comments come at a time when momentum for putting a team in Seattle had been gaining steam. Earlier this season, influential Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said "there's a good chance of [expansion] happening, but I have no idea when." That "when," Silver seems to want to make clear, is not now. He has several reasons to take this position, primarily about leverage and uncertainty. Right now, the NBA is dealing with a problem spot in Milwaukee with the Bucks. In September, Silver visited Milwaukee and told a group of sponsors that the Bradley Center was unfit and the team needed a new arena. In December, 78-year-old owner Herb Kohl announced he was planning to sell a portion of the franchise but wanted only investors who wouldn't move the team. Regardless of Kohl's position, a team with an arena issue that's for sale creates a leverage opportunity, and Silver likely will not pass that up. The Bucks' lease at the Bradley Center will expire in 2017, which has essentially established a deadline to deal with the situation. It will not be simple. Recently, city politicians fought mayor Tom Barrett when he allocated a mere $175,000 in parking revenues to help the Bucks with building maintenance. New arenas these days cost upward of $400 million, and Silver and Kohl are looking for public funding. It is unlikely Silver would take any meaningful steps on expansion with the Bucks' situation unresolved. After fighting for a new arena in Sacramento for a decade, it wasn't until the real threat of relocation to Seattle that a deal for a new arena for the Kings was forced through. The attractiveness of the Seattle option could end up being the wedge in Milwaukee.
Cuban, though, had reason to make such a prediction about expansion in Seattle. The group that wanted to move the Kings and reincarnate the SuperSonics had offered $420 million for 72 percent of the team and agreed to a record $115 million relocation fee plus $200 million to repay bonds issued for a new arena, and has already spent $80 million to buy land in south Seattle for the new building. That meant those Seattle investors, led by Chris Hansen and Microsoft billionaire Steve Ballmer, were willing to commit more than $800 million for a team in 2013. Such an expansive and aggressive bid clearly left Cuban wondering just how far that group might go financially to get a team in Seattle in the next few years. By comparison, when the league added the Charlotte Bobcats in 2004, the expansion fee was $300 million. Each team got a check for $10.3 million. If the Seattle group is willing to go to $800 million, for example, each team would receive $26 million. Or perhaps more, as few know how much Hansen and Ballmer are prepared to spend, which is Cuban's point. "I just think the price of the expansion fee has to be so high that the NBA owners think, 'OK, we're crazy not to do it.' What that number is, I don't know. But I'm open to it," Cuban said. "It just depends on the price. When you sit in the board of governors meeting, you give a price, and each NBA owner calculates his share. You balance it to what you're giving up in TV and shared revenue, and you say: OK, it's worth it. Then you say you got to do it." That TV share, however, is another major sticking point that will delay Cuban's dream auction. This summer, Silver will start talks for a new round of television and digital rights deals. The current deals expire in 2016. Until the new contracts are finalized and kick in, owners won't know how much expansion would cost them. With each additional team, the pie gets split up more. Without knowing the numbers, owners can't weigh it against the expansion fee they might be able to command.
In addition to the raw dollars, Silver said he's also worried about what could happen to the level of play in the league if another team or two were added. "I and the owners will look at not only the dilution of economic opportunities with one more partner to divide national and international money but also dilution of talent," Silver said. "Right now some are already making comments about the [Eastern Conference], so is it the ideal time to be adding another 15 or 30 players to the league? " Ultimately I'm responsible for the financial and competitive health of a 30-team league, and while we made tremendous strides in the last collective bargaining agreement, we're still not there yet. We don't have 30 profitable teams in the NBA, and while we've made progress, there are still teams that aren't competitive enough."Silver and Cuban probably agree that, at some point, there will be a team in Seattle again -- but only after the league has used the option to maximize its business interests, with the convenient side benefit of more time passing, perhaps driving up the demand and the price even higher. "[The Kings decision] should not have been received as a no to Seattle," Silver said. "There's no doubt if we were prepared to expand to Seattle right now, we'd get an enormous price for the franchise."espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10442963/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-talks-expansion
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Feb 13, 2014 12:32:04 GMT -6
makes me think the NHL might try to beat them to seattle, they would need to amend the agreement which is absoltuely doable if a tenant is possible.
but they have time to sit back and look
|
|