One of the questions in the recently released arena deal was if the arena backers presented accurate information to the public in their initial news release announcing the deal; and subsequent reporting indicated they didn’t.
So far the county’s response to that discrepancy is "It's one way it [financial information] can be presented; it's not the only way,".
The public is going to need accurate and clearly-stated financial information to make an informed decision involving a huge chunk of local public funding, (particularly when so many other needs, including flood protection and public safety, are obvious) and deserves such from public leadership.
An excerpt.
Board votes today on arena
Big public turnout seen for pivotal county test
By Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writers Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Sacramento County supervisors will likely face a large crowd today when they decide whether to let the Kings arena proposal move forward.
Technically, the vote to put the measure on the November ballot isn't scheduled until Aug. 2. But the five-member board must first muster at least four votes today to introduce the ordinance.
The second vote is considered a formality, since the outcome will likely be identical.
Discussion of the arena proposal is scheduled to begin at 11:15 a.m. in the supervisors chambers at 700 H St.
"If you don't have enough votes to introduce the ordinance," Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said Monday, "obviously you don't go any further."
Dickinson, who helped craft the financing proposal, which relies on a new, quarter-cent sales tax, said he is "optimistic" that at least three of his four colleagues will join him in voting to put the measure before voters.
He predicted a big public turnout today.
"People are obviously tuned into this, they're energized, and they're quite passionate," he said.
On the pro-arena side, Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof on Friday sent out a mass e-mail to fans urging them to contact their supervisors and inviting them to attend today's hearing.
Opponents also geared up. State Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, who built his political career in part by opposing public funding for an arena, cut short his vacation to hold a news conference Monday.
"I'm opposed to over a half-billion dollar handout to billionaire sports team owners," Jones said, flanked by about 30 activists. "Pro basketball is big business and they should invest in their business like everyone else. They shouldn't look for handouts."
The news conference was held at the corner of L and Sixth streets, near the site where 19-year-old Eric Anthony Young Jr. was shot and killed June 11. Jones said the site was chosen to illustrate existing community problems that could use more taxpayer funds: police protection, flood control, affordable housing, and better parks and schools.
One participant in Jones' conference was Rhonda Erwin, a Sacramento activist pushing for youth violence prevention.
"Forty young people have been murdered this year," Erwin said, holding a sign with their names and ages. "Where are our priorities?"
Jones said the arena proposal, as outlined by the negotiating team, was misleading, inflating the Maloofs' contribution as either 26 percent or 30 percent, depending on the building's cost.
The negotiating team didn't discount the value of lease payments the Maloofs will make 20 or 30 years in the future -- a standard accounting practice.
"Their participation is really about 10 percent," Jones said. "The team owners are not participating in any truly meaningful way."
Others who have analyzed the proposal say the Maloofs will contribute from 12 percent to 15 percent of the arena's cost -- once the money that they plan to pay in the future is evaluated at its worth today. That amount stacks up favorably to owner contributions in arena deals in similar markets such as Memphis, Indianapolis and Charlotte, N.C., said Paul Hahn, the county's economic development director.
This is the case regardless of whether the Maloof contribution is counted in "present" or future terms, he said.
"It's one way it can be presented; it's not the only way," Hahn said.
