"Art" in front of the arena?

[Livinthedream]

So the 447million itself is not tax payer money?
This whole art thing is like saying we have $1million. We might as well just buy this one Lamborghini because what else could it go towards? 500 Fords or Hondas? I THINK NOT!

Your anaology is a bit off. It's more like saying we have $100 K that we HAVE to spend on a car. This Lamborghini costs $200 K and is the best car currently available. If we want it, we will get donations to make up the difference, and provide us additional money to make other car purchases from a local dealership.

The argument against this appears to be that since I don't like Lamborghini's we should not take the additional donations or the best car on the market. Let's just buy 100 base model Fiats instead because we get more cars. We don't need 100 cars but obviously 100 is better than 1.

 

[Livinthedream]

Wow. Ok, you must not have been here for the years and years of arena debates, the months and months and months of arena funding debates that preceded the exact plan that we have now, or heard Kevin Johnson explain this ad nauseum, in ever smaller and simpler soundbites. I'll try again, and I'm willing to address your points of confusion after you read this post.

The actual cash the city is contributing to the this project (not the land donation -- which is not taxpayer money), but the actual cash, comes from the sale of bonds that are backed not by tax revenue, but by future parking revenue. That future parking revenue is being generated by traffic to the ESC itself, therefore, the funds do not exist without the building. There is literally zero impact or draw from tax revenue or the general fund whatsoever. It is bonds that are backed by future parking revenue, financed through a company that actually specializes in doing this type of funding. The value of this "future parking revenue" was assessed by a third party, again, one that specializes in appraising the value of future parking revenue. This sounds a bit "inside baseball", but it's a fairly common practice for municipalities as a way to monetize an asset such as parking.

So again, ZERO cash (other than the cost of paying city staff to work on this plan, etc) from the general fund, and zero actual cash from taxes, is being used for this project. It's monetizing an asset (parking) that is created by the ESC itself.

The most misunderstood part of the arena deal is that there is no $230 Mil to spend on this project without the project itself. The ESC itself is the money generator. Not taxes. The overall project including hotels and other ancillary projects actual generates additional tax revenue for the city.

 

[Warhawk]

This selection is not the end of the world by any means; the arena and the team are of magnitudes higher importance. But it is taking $8 million from our local economy and sending it to New York for something "frivolous". That is a big part of what torques me. Spend that locally with local artists and show some pride in OUR community. I have no problem with the art budget. I have a problem with how it's being spent and what it is being spent on.

 

[206Fan]

Wow. Ok, you must not have been here for the years and years of arena debates, the months and months and months of arena funding debates that preceded the exact plan that we have now, or heard Kevin Johnson explain this ad nauseum, in ever smaller and simpler soundbites. I'll try again, and I'm willing to address your points of confusion after you read this post.

The actual cash the city is contributing to the this project (not the land donation -- which is not taxpayer money), but the actual cash, comes from the sale of bonds that are backed not by tax revenue, but by future parking revenue. That future parking revenue is being generated by traffic to the ESC itself, therefore, the funds do not exist without the building. There is literally zero impact or draw from tax revenue or the general fund whatsoever. It is bonds that are backed by future parking revenue, financed through a company that actually specializes in doing this type of funding. The value of this "future parking revenue" was assessed by a third party, again, one that specializes in appraising the value of future parking revenue. This sounds a bit "inside baseball", but it's a fairly common practice for municipalities as a way to monetize an asset such as parking.

So again, ZERO cash (other than the cost of paying city staff to work on this plan, etc) from the general fund, and zero actual cash from taxes, is being used for this project. It's monetizing an asset (parking) that is created by the ESC itself.

So where does the city of Sacramento actually gets it cash from??? It ALL comes from somewhere. One way or another, it comes for the people of Sacramento. This is ECON 101. Please take this with an economist because he'll give you an hour long speech basically telling you that this money is coming from the people of Sacramento. The city is basically taking money and investing it into the Kings. When you trace every little piece back, it goes back to people's pockets.

parking and economic development funds ($11 million).

The City will finance its contribution through the sale of bonds ($212 million)

Hammer, I'm not trying to be a stop member or anything..but you have to know that this money is coming from Sacramento. The money in Sacramento comes directly from people. Basics of municipal bonds http://www.investor.gov/investing-basics/investment-products/municipal-bonds

Let's say Sacramento's "investment" in the Kings bombs a little bit because expectations aren't met. Who pays for that? Kevin Johnson? Vivek?
A lot of projects are like this.

Who pays for the monthly bill/interest while the ESC is being constructed? You trace the its and bits, and you see that this money is all coming from tax payers. Very much like everything else in the city.


I believe this is the wrong thread to discuss this matter. Please talk to an economists regarding this if you do not believe that the money in someway shape or form, comes from the people's pockets. I do not oppose that itself, but I DO oppose this art piece.

 

[The Hammer]

So where does the city of Sacramento actually gets it cash from??? It ALL comes from somewhere. One way or another, it comes for the people of Sacramento. This is ECON 101. Please take this with an economist because he'll give you an hour long speech basically telling you that this money is coming from the people of Sacramento. The city is basically taking money and investing it into the Kings. When you trace every little piece back, it goes back to people's pockets.





Hammer, I'm not trying to be a stop member or anything..but you have to know that this money is coming from Sacramento. The money in Sacramento comes directly from people. Basics of municipal bonds http://www.investor.gov/investing-basics/investment-products/municipal-bonds

Let's say Sacramento's "investment" in the Kings bombs a little bit because expectations aren't met. Who pays for that? Kevin Johnson? Vivek?
A lot of projects are like this.

Who pays for the monthly bill/interest while the ESC is being constructed? You trace the its and bits, and you see that this money is all coming from tax payers. Very much like everything else in the city.


I believe this is the wrong thread to discuss this matter. Please talk to an economists regarding this if you do not believe that the money in someway shape or form, comes from the people's pockets. I do not oppose that itself, but I DO oppose this art piece.

It sounds like you just don't like the art piece itself, and you are using very convoluted reasoning about the financing of the arena to justify it.

Do you oppose the city ordinance that 2% of the construction cost all publicly owned buildings must be spent on public art? Because that is what is mandating this spending. What exactly do you oppose? How would you do it? What art would you choose?

But I still HIGHLY disagree with your reasoning. The city's contribution is being paid for by people who use it. Even if you consider parking as some kind of "use tax", it's still being funded only by people who use the arena, and arena that would not be there without... the arena. It's monetizing an asset that is directly connected to the arena itself. Of course, we have to pay for things if we want them, things are not free, but this is about the fairest way to pay for something like this I can think of.

It sounds like you still don't understand the funding. These particular bonds are being backed, financed, and insured by the parking asset. It's true that parking could fall below expectations, but the estimates all across the board have been conservative, and there is a major appraisal company that came in to estimate this value. Yes, the city's treasury guarantees the bonds if that happens... but it's a completely different things to say that "taxpayers are paying for the building" as opposed to "taxpayers are insuring the bonds" should parking expectations fall short. And even then, it would simply mean that it would take more time for the parking revenue to refill the general fund. And in 75 years, long after the bonds are paid off, the city will still be getting proceeds from the increased parking downtown. Yes, there is risk there, but now you're arguing risk/reward on an investment, not who pays for it. The money is still coming from people who use the arena itself, or rather park for it on event nights.

However if you make that argument (the risk), you have to take into account the potential reward. Which is that the ESC stimulates the economy, creates jobs, and brings more money into the general fund. You act like the whole project is just a frivolous art piece with no economic benefit. Not even close to true. Of course there is the risk that that doesn't happen. But there is no reward without risk, and this is the mindset that KJ and all other arena proponents were desperately trying to combat.

So, are you now arguing that the arena itself is a bad investment, economically speaking?

 

[kennadog]

Okay, I've posted comments in the thread with the poll on this, so I'm not going to repeat it all. I will say that about half the money paying for the art is coming from private funds.

The money is not all going to New York necessarily, nor would a piece this large by a local artist guarantee all the money would stay local.

I think you go for the world renowned artist. If I could have the Venus de Milo installed in Sacramento or a bunch of sculptures by local artists, I take Venus.

If I could choose Yoyo Ma for a cello soloist with the philarmonic or a local cellist, I take Ma.

If I could have I M Pei as the architect for a new community center theater or a local architect, I take Pei.

If I could see Meryl Streep in a local theater production or a local actress, I take Streep.

Not everyone likes the work of Ma, Streep, Pei or the Venus de Milo. But I sure wouldn't pass up having them here over some silly notion that it would be an affront to local pride.

By the way, I don't think of any art as frivolous, not even art I really dislike.

 

[Warhawk]

Okay, I've posted comments in the thread with the poll on this, so I'm not going to repeat it all. I will say that about half the money paying for the art is coming from private funds.

The money is not all going to New York necessarily, nor would a piece this large by a local artist guarantee all the money would stay local.

I think you go for the world renowned artist. If I could have the Venus de Milo installed in Sacramento or a bunch of sculptures by local artists, I take Venus.

If I could choose Yoyo Ma for a cello soloist with the philarmonic or a local cellist, I take Ma.

If I could have I M Pei as the architect for a new community center theater or a local architect, I take Pei.

If I could see Meryl Streep in a local theater production or a local actress, I take Streep.

Not everyone likes the work of Ma, Streep, Pei or the Venus de Milo. But I sure wouldn't pass up having them here over some silly notion that it would be an affront to local pride.

By the way, I don't think of any art as frivolous, not even art I really dislike.

That's great, but this is no Yoyo Ma we are talking about.

And I do think that some art is frivolous. I don't put the statue of David on the same level as the following masterpiece by our esteemed Mr. Koons:

I mean, wow, he really went all out on that one. Make it 18 feet tall and $8 million and let's use that for our centerpiece.

 

[The Hammer]

That's great, but this is no Yoyo Ma we are talking about.

And I do think that some art is frivolous. I don't put the statue of David on the same level as the following masterpiece by our esteemed Mr. Koons:

I mean, wow, he really went all out on that one. Make it 18 feet tall and $8 million and let's use that for our centerpiece.

Dude, just stop.

Art is clearly just a way for you to feel superior to other people.

You're just being extremely classless right now.

 

[Warhawk]

Dude, just stop.

Art is clearly just a way for you to feel superior to other people.

You're just being extremely classless right now.

It has nothing to do with feeling superior and everything to do with the importance of what we fill that space with. What is classless about referencing the artist's work that he puts out? It's his work from his website.

 

[kennadog]

That's great, but this is no Yoyo Ma we are talking about.

And I do think that some art is frivolous. I don't put the statue of David on the same level as the following masterpiece by our esteemed Mr. Koons:

I mean, wow, he really went all out on that one. Make it 18 feet tall and $8 million and let's use that for our centerpiece.

How do you know he isn't an artistic equivalent to Yoyo Ma in the art world? I don't. You like David better than the lobster. I like David better than the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower and lots of people would disagree with me. So what? Its all just opinions, not fact. I don't claim that becasue I like one piece of art over another, it means the piece I prefer is clearly a better piece of art.

 

[The Hammer]

It has nothing to do with feeling superior and everything to do with the importance of what we fill that space with. What is classless about referencing the artist's work that he puts out? It's his work from his website.

Your tone of derision.

 

[Warhawk]

How do you know he isn't an artistic equivalent to Yoyo Ma in the art world? I don't. You like David better than the lobster. I like David better than the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower and lots of people would disagree with me. So what? Its all just opinions, not fact. I don't claim that becasue I like one piece of art over another, it means the piece I prefer is clearly a better piece of art.

I agree with you when we are talking David and the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower. I guess I can't get to the point where I can put David next to an inflated toy lobster and say they are both "equal" in terms of art. One shows hard work and talent. The other ... doesn't.

 

[Warhawk]

Your tone of derision.

Gotcha. Well, the next time you are ever derisive towards Jim Rome or Rush Limbaugh or any Kings player I hope you remember this, as they are all artists in their own right, correct? They all work hard at their craft and do the best they can to rise to the top of their profession. Let's not show derision to anyone who is recognized as great in their field.

 

[Livinthedream]

I'm not sure this discussion can get anywhere until the distinction between opinion and fact can be made.

 

[The Hammer]

Gotcha. Well, the next time you are ever derisive towards Jim Rome or Rush Limbaugh or any Kings player I hope you remember this, as they are all artists in their own right, correct? They all work hard at their craft and do the best they can to rise to the top of their profession. Let's not show derision to anyone who is recognized as great in their field.

You are incredibly adept at missing my point, so I'm going to bow out of this debate.

 

[Padrino]

Gotcha. Well, the next time you are ever derisive towards Jim Rome or Rush Limbaugh or any Kings player I hope you remember this, as they are all artists in their own right, correct? They all work hard at their craft and do the best they can to rise to the top of their profession. Let's not show derision to anyone who is recognized as great in their field.

when it comes to jeff koons' "Coloring Book," there's nothing wrong at all with an individual perspective that sees "a pastel blob" and nothing else, but you seem hellbent on refusing to acknowledge the possibility that one could see anything else in the piece, which goes far beyond the simple derision of an artist; it also derides the audience, and that i do take issue with, because i see considerable beauty in a lot of koons' work. i find worth in the commentary on nostalgia that runs through his more colorful pieces, and so do many other highly-trained eyes. i don't care that you don't like it, and i have no intention of attempting to convince you to like it. if it's not for you, it's not for you. but you act as if the only logical conclusion to arrive at is one in which koons' piece is somehow not fit for the city of sacramento, despite a local art commission's unanimous endorsement to the contrary, as well as the support of a few local voices from amongst "the little people" right here at kf.com...

 

[Warhawk]

when it comes to jeff koons' "Coloring Book," there's nothing wrong at all with an individual perspective that sees "a pastel blob" and nothing else, but you seem hellbent on refusing to acknowledge the possibility that one could see anything else in the piece, which goes far beyond the simple derision of an artist; it also derides the audience, and that i do take issue with, because i see considerable beauty in a lot of koons' work. i find worth in the commentary on nostalgia that runs through his more colorful pieces, and so do many other highly-trained eyes. i don't care that you don't like it, and i have no intention of attempting to convince you to like it. if it's not for you, it's not for you. but you act as if the only logical conclusion to arrive at is one in which koons' piece is somehow not fit for the city of sacramento, despite a local art commission's unanimous endorsement to the contrary, as well as the support of a few local voices from amongst "the little people" right here at kf.com...

Fair enough.

I apologize for deriding/insulting any of you that were offended by my comments. They were intended to be directed to the artist and nobody here at kf.com. Mea culpa.

 

[PurpleHaze]

ART STRUCTURE TO COST TAX PAYERS $2.75 MILLION!

http://www.kcra.com/news/art-sculpture-will-cost-sacramento-taxpayers-275m/31596940

 

[The Hammer]

ART STRUCTURE TO COST TAX PAYERS $2.75 MILLION!

http://www.kcra.com/news/art-sculpture-will-cost-sacramento-taxpayers-275m/31596940

And thank GOD selection of public art is not done by the masses. Art is exactly the last thing that should be decided by the lowest common denominator.

And that article is horribly written. It explains NOTHING about the "2.75 million" used in the headline. That is utter b.s. Taxpayers aren't paying a DIME for the ESC! And that is what should be the story. Sacramento is basically getting a world class arena, that the city will OWN, and it's basically getting it for free. Paid for by folks who use the arena (parking futures).

 

[Warhawk]

And thank GOD selection of public art is not done by the masses. Art is exactly the last thing that should be decided by the lowest common denominator.

Just like our President, Congress, other elected offi.......wait a minute, I am making your point for you, aren't I?

 

[Warhawk]

So there is more detail in today's Sac Bee about this:

http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/arts-culture/article12492683.html

The shape is exactly the same as the other 4 he has made, only the colors will change. He does none of the work himself, he uses "paint-by-numbers" and others do the fabricating and painting. $8 million and he can't even be bothered pick up a brush to get his hands a little dirty. It really is a coloring book that he doesn't even work on.

In a departure from the norm, there was no open competition for the artwork to be chosen for the new arena.

 

[The Hammer]

So there is more detail in today's Sac Bee about this:

http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/arts-culture/article12492683.html

The shape is exactly the same as the other 4 he has made, only the colors will change. He does none of the work himself, he uses "paint-by-numbers" and others do the fabricating and painting. $8 million and he can't even be bothered pick up a brush to get his hands a little dirty. It really is a coloring book that he doesn't even work on.

In a departure from the norm, there was no open competition for the artwork to be chosen for the new arena.

How is it not obvious to you that there could not have been any local artists that could have competed at all with the price range they were looking for?

It's out of the norm, simply because the budget was astronomically out of the norm. The ESC is out of the norm. You insinuate it was unfair. Well, it would been a charade anyway... would that have been fair to waste local artists time and energy knowing well before hand they never stood a chance. Think of the numbers! No local artist had ever been commissioned more than 250K... You think they could be up for a 5-8 mil project?

How can you be so blind to basic reason here?

 

[VF21]

I'm going to make an administrative decision here, and close this thread in favor of the one with the poll.