Originally Posted by snfenoc
LOL. Mayor Johnson has spoken multiple times about a downtown arena as being key to create a world class, destination city. After reading these forums and listening to KHTK radio, I suspect many Sacramentans feel the same way. Granted, suspicion and anecdotal evidence don't make a super strong case. However, I'm not the one claiming hundreds of millions in cash subsidies and free land to a development group is key to improving Sacramento's urban core.
Currently, there is increased interest in Sacramento properties. So what? This is hardly evidence that an arena proposal is making the difference. Developers have said downtown is prime for development multiple times throughout the decades, long before an arena was even on the radar. Right now, all we have is a few sketchy proposals and some properties changing hands. Ho hum. Par for the course. The economy is improving...I guess...so why wouldn't we have real estate transactions and possibly some development? CalPERS is about investment. Why wouldn't it want to finally get a return on that hole in the ground? We haven't even seen a concrete proposal for that site. Yet an arena, which itself is in the nascent stage of development, is getting a bunch of credit? For what? Show me some real development that is directly tied to the arena proposal. Actually, show me some development that is directly tied to the arena AND will pay the city back (plus the opportunity cost) for its subsidy. Also, show me that without a new arena, less economically favorable development would happen. Yeah, a couple local developers have credited the arena for why they are rehabilitating older buildings (e.g. the California Fruit Building). So? Big whoop. Come on, that's just advertisement. They want to get in the press. And, frankly, I don't think a couple building rehabs, or even some condos and a hotel will pay the city back for the "investment" it is making. Hell, some of those developments may even require their own public welfare.
I've been to multiple cities with downtown stadiums. All I can say is, "Meh." The buildings are closed 75% of the time. They are big, boring fortresses that stand empty in the middle of real economic activity. Surely, there are better uses of space, especially when I think of all the money the public invests in these things. Just ridiculous. Now, maybe this arena proposal will buck that trend. Maybe it will have lots of shops, restaurants and small/medium sized businesses (with affordable rents) associated with it. Maybe it'll be a gathering place for the community for small events (e.g., concerts in the plaza or farmers markets). But I'm not holding my breath. I want more than some pretty drawings and lip service from the Kings ownership.
I used to think subsidized arenas were good things, but after attending educational forums about the issue, speaking with economists and reading articles about the subject, it's clear that subsidized arenas struggle to return the "investment" communities are forced to make in them. Not only are stadiums expensive to build, but they are also expensive to maintain - a burden that usually falls on the stadium authority (AKA the public). Then, after about 20-25 years, the buildings become obsolete and a new "investment" is required. Yes, stadiums see a lot of economic activity, but that's simply because they concentrate a region's already existent entertainment dollars in one small area. Do they actually create new money for a city or region? If so, is that new money enough to offset the subsidy? I don't think so.
I'm not big on the idea of an urban Wal Mart. However, I doubt one would require subsidies. And quite frankly, the jobs a Wal Mart provides aren't any worse than getting paid minimum wage to walk through a crow yelling, "Programs! Get your programs!"
The great thing about my position is...I DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! If I am wrong, then great. I'll enjoy the fruits of the arena like everyone else. If my skepticism turns out to have teeth, I get to say, "Told you so!" It's a win-win for me. You see, I'm not making the claim that Sacramento should put itself on the hook for nearly $250 million. I'm not making the claim that Sacramento should give away valuable land. The burden of proof is not mine. I find it offensive that some of the fanatic pro arena people dismiss my concerns. They should have to present A LOT of strong evidence for their claim. Simply pointing to a few property transactions and some talk of bordering development proposals ain't enough.
|