In the sports page of today’s Bee is the beginning of an excellent public policy discussion contrasting support for public funding of a sports arena for a very profitable private business enterprise, the Sacramento Kings; or to save lives and property by protecting the city from flooding.
In one scenario for example, the $500 million a new arena is expected to cost would obviously go a long way toward meeting the local match required to build a $5 billion Auburn Dam.
Which is more important, an arena or flood protection, with the always limited funds available, is a very good public policy discussion to have, and this article opens it very well.
Here is an excerpt.
Marcos Bretón: A new arena: Will it ever be?
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Sports ColumnistPublished 12:01 am PDT Thursday, June 8, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO -- The game Wednesday was a Florida Marlins rout over the Giants, but the setting was spectacular: AT&T Park on a gorgeous day, in a fantastic space that benefits all the city as an attraction and gathering spot.
It made one wonder: Could Sacramento ever build a place like this? Not a stadium, but a first-class arena?
It appears the answer is no because this park in San Francisco was built largely with private money while Sacramento is headed for another round of trying to sell the public on paying millions in tax dollars so the Kings can have a new place to play.
In the coming months, you'll hear the inevitable sales pitch: How donating your tax dollars is not really about the Kings but about building a gleaming new space for Sacramento that would attract first-rate concerts and other events -- along with providing the Kings a world-class backdrop for that still-unfulfilled title run.
On one level, the movement to publicly fund an arena in Sacramento -- taking shape behind closed doors -- seems preposterous, given that precious tax dollars should be going to fix crumbling levees before many of us are paddling in rowboats across our front yards.
Sacramento is a flood disaster waiting to happen -- no one disputes this. Yet precious time, energy and money, along with our collective attention as a community, are going to be focused on an arena?
To a disinterested observer -- of which there are about three in Sacramento -- such an idea would seem ludicrous, but there is no denying the local passion for the Kings.
In fact, even while sitting here along the Bay, one could make the argument that the Kings mean more to Sacramento than the Giants do to San Francisco.
The Kings are the Giants and 49ers rolled into one for the fans of the Sacramento Valley and beyond, a purple obsession that transcends sports and is felt even by those who don't care for basketball.
Personally, I don't want the Kings to leave, am not against building an arena and -- like so many -- I love the buzz around town on game days, the excitement of the playoffs, the sound of Arco Arena when the game is on the line, the sight of kids in Kings shirts and hats.
We're talking about a public treasure -- and a private business. And this is where the funding of an arena with public money becomes so divisive.
Because in the end, your tax dollars will still be going to improve the bottom line of someone much wealthier than yourself.
Agreed. You'll also get to keep the Kings. Sacramento will get a brand-new arena where the local team will headline while, presumably, better concerts and shows will come to town.
Will an arena be an economic boon to Sacramento?
It won't, according to every academic study ever done on the financial effects of stadiums and arenas. The only people who claim that stadiums and arenas create jobs and prosperity are the people who benefit financially from them.
