After the monumental flop of last year’s “arena deal” in Sacramento – with voters spanking a proposed tax hike to pay for what amounted to a half-billion-dollar subsidy for the owners of the Sacramento Kings – you’d think folks would have learned something. Or not.
Keeping the Sacramento Kings in the area and building a first class entertainment venue are laudable goals – as long as taxpayers don’t get soaked along the way.
The last proposal was simply a bad deal for taxpayers. And everyone involved lost credibility and public support by trying to be too clever instead of putting together a solid proposal that could stand on it’s own merits.
After the last debacle, the NBA decided to get involved, and now there is a push to locate a new arena at Cal Expo – current home of the State Fair and horse racing.
Proponents say it’s a good deal because it won’t cost taxpayers any money. But let’s be clear: giving valuable public land to an arena group for development to pay for an arena is still a taxpayer subsidy.
While they might have found a way to sneak this thing in without a public vote, the proponents are going to discover that they still need public support. They’re still going to have to convince the public that it’s a good deal.
And so far, they haven’t even come close.
Maybe the CalExpo site is the best venue – frankly I don’t know. Unfortunately, neither the City, the NBA, nor the Kings/Maloofs have done a very good job convincing the public of the need for new arena, much less the need for the public to pay for it.
Recent surveys have shown that a majority of voters think ARCO arena is sufficient. The others are divided about what to do about it. A year ago we were told the rail yards was the best – perhaps only – location. Then we heard the current location in Natomas was ideal. Now they are talking about CalExpo as if it has always been the first choice. Next we’ll be talking about Rancho Cordova or West Sacramento as the best place for a regional sports venue…
If Sacramento had strong leadership – either from political (a strong mayor/city leader) or from the business/civic community, or even the Kings for that matter – something would have been worked out long ago.
The biggest trouble with the CalExpo site – aside from the physical challenges – is that the property is owned by the state. Although it is governed by an appointed board, you can be certain legislators will weigh on this. Especially those with sports franchises who have not secured windfall support from the state.
I’m not opposed to a public-private partnerships, I enjoy the Kings, and I support the creation of a first-class sports entertainment complex. But to get a deal like this done, the proponents need to learn at least one lesson from the past: whatever public-private partnership emerges, it cannot be one-sided – it must be a good deal for the public (i.e. taxpayers).
I think I speak for a lot of taxpayers when I say: I’m tired of secret backroom deals, sense of entitlement, naked greed and attempts to deceive voters.
That’s just not a good way to start a partnership.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.