Bee: Game's on in arena PR battle

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/19274.html
Game's on in arena PR battle
Two sides unveil their leaders in dueling press events
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 8:37 am PDT Thursday, September 7, 2006


Proponents and opponents of the plan to build a new arena for the Kings staged dueling news conferences Wednesday to announce the leaders of their respective campaigns.

The events starkly illustrated the contrasting nature of the two efforts. Much of the business and political establishment of Sacramento lined up behind the arena plan Wednesday during a press conference near its proposed location in the old railyard just north of downtown.

Meanwhile, the grass-roots group opposing the proposed quarter-cent increase in the sales tax rolled out endorsements from school board members and two former members of the Sacramento City Council and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

"Theirs is a vision of the past; ours is a vision of the future," declared Doug Elmets, a spokesman for the Yes on Q and R campaign.
Opponents of Measures Q and R disagree with his assessment but acknowledge they are outgunned.

"We don't have a $5 million bankroll from the Maloofs; this is strictly a grass-roots campaign," said Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn, one of the opposition leaders.

Elmets said he had no idea where Cohn got the $5 million figure. The Maloofs have made no such commitment, he said, and fundraising is just getting started.

Contacted by phone later, Cohn said he really has no idea what the Maloofs will spend, but just meant to suggest that the proponents will likely have plenty of money at their disposal, while the opposition campaign will be run mostly by volunteers.

"They do have an all-star consultant team," he noted. "These people don't come cheap."

Wednesday's public relations push began with a morning press conference in the railyard attended by local officials and business leaders, including Kings owner Joe Maloof.

Former Sacramento County Supervisor Sandy Smoley was officially designated the campaign chairwoman.

Her co-chairs will include Matt Mahood, president and chief executive officer of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; Pat Fong-Kushida, president and chief executive officer of the Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce; downtown developer David Taylor; and Joe and Gavin Maloof, among others.

Giant red, white and blue balloons were tethered to the cracked concrete of the dilapidated former industrial hub to provide a festive backdrop, and reporters received slick press packets.

The speakers were cheered by a crowd of about 100 people, many of them employees of Maloof Sports and Entertainment, which operates the Kings and Monarchs.

Smoley said the new quarter- cent sales tax, predicted to raise $1.2 billion over 15 years, would provide "an amazing array of benefits" to Sacramento County communities. About half the money would be slated for a new arena. The other half would go back to Sacramento County and its cities.

Following Smoley to the lectern, Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo said arena proponents should stress the ways in which communities could benefit from this money, potentially spending it to improve schools, or beef up law enforcement, for example.

"People need to recognize what they're going to get out of this if they vote for it," she said.

While Fargo and several other speakers praised the arena plan as a potential catalyst for development of the railyard, Joe Maloof said his family would look for other locations in Sacramento if the downtown site proves too difficult to prepare in time.

"This site has been vacant for decades because it's such a difficult site to develop," Maloof said. "There are a lot of moving pieces."

Two hours later, seven arena opponents, led by Cohn, assembled in front of the doors to the historic Sacramento City Hall. Aside from the television cameras and reporters, there were few others in attendance, other than Elmets, who had come to watch and offer counter-spin to reporters.

Cohn was joined by two members of the Sacramento City Unified School District board, Manny Hernandez and Jerry Houseman, along with Sacramento Municipal Utility District board member Larry Carr, who lost a recent bid for a county supervisor seat.

Others in attendance included Grantland Johnson, a lobbyist with the Sacramento Central Labor Council who was a county supervisor from 1986-1993, and Lynn Robie, a city councilwoman from 1979-1992.

They said Sacramento County needs to spend more on schools, crime prevention, flood protection and social services -- not a sports arena.
Opponents also criticized the deal crafted by city and county negotiators as overly generous to the Maloofs, with the public shouldering the entire cost of construction, estimated at $470 million to $542 million. The Maloofs have agreed to contribute $20 million to a fund for capital repairs or other uses and and to pay an average of $4 million in rent for 30 years.

"They should negotiate a better deal that reflects a true public-private partnership," Johnson said. "We have to get more than psychic rewards."

Cohn seized on Maloof's remark about putting the arena somewhere other than the railyard.

"One of the main points proponents have made is that this will really help downtown development," Cohn said. "Unless they can guarantee the arena will go in the railyard, which is not guaranteed, it's hard to make that argument."

About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#2
While Fargo and several other speakers praised the arena plan as a potential catalyst for development of the railyard, Joe Maloof said his family would look for other locations in Sacramento if the downtown site proves too difficult to prepare in time.

"This site has been vacant for decades because it's such a difficult site to develop," Maloof said. "There are a lot of moving pieces."
That seems to throw a little different light on Joe's comment.
 
#3
They said Sacramento County needs to spend more on schools, crime prevention, flood protection and social services -- not a sports arena.
What part of the fact that this money is EXTRA revenue, part of which WILL be spent on crime prevention, flood protection, social services or whatever the cities involved deem needed do they not understand?????? This is a separate revenue stream, it is NOT taking away from some imaginary pile of money that the city has lying around.
If they want to whine and cry about building a sports complex, that's fine, but to keep twisting it like it's stealing funding from other projects is dis ingenious
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#4
"We don't have a $5 million bankroll from the Maloofs; this is strictly a grass-roots campaign," said Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn, one of the opposition leaders.

Elmets said he had no idea where Cohn got the $5 million figure. The Maloofs have made no such commitment, he said, and fundraising is just getting started.

Contacted by phone later, Cohn said he really has no idea what the Maloofs will spend, but just meant to suggest that the proponents will likely have plenty of money at their disposal, while the opposition campaign will be run mostly by volunteers.

"They do have an all-star consultant team," he noted. "These people don't come cheap."
Talk about destroying credibility. Cohn was caught pulling figures out of the air. I'm glad to see Vellinga called him on it.

 
#5
Let's see the opposition's choice is $600 million for the projects/programs they want funded or........zero dollars. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes: They should be excited about how wonderful it will be to have that $600 mil.

Not only that, but if they were that passionate about the city needing more money for those things, where the h*ll have they been and what have they been doing? They could have put a proposition for increased revenue on any city ballot or the county ballot at any election!

They couldn't be bothered to spend any money or time doing that, so they'll spend their time and money rejecting $600 million for their causes. WTF?

By the way...aren't you surprised by all the Sacramento business organizations that are for the arena? Don't they read all the studies that say there is no economic benefit from public arenas? ;) (I just couldn't resist.)
 
#6
Let's see the opposition's choice is $600 million for the projects/programs they want funded or........zero dollars. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes: They should be excited about how wonderful it will be to have that $600 mil.

Not only that, but if they were that passionate about the city needing more money for those things, where the h*ll have they been and what have they been doing? They could have put a proposition for increased revenue on any city ballot or the county ballot at any election!

They couldn't be bothered to spend any money or time doing that, so they'll spend their time and money rejecting $600 million for their causes. WTF?

By the way...aren't you surprised by all the Sacramento business organizations that are for the arena? Don't they read all the studies that say there is no economic benefit from public arenas? ;) (I just couldn't resist.)
No kidding. The arena portion is only 42-45% of the whole deal. The Kings and Monarchs will only use the facility only 33% of all nights. The Maloofs (correct me if I am wrong) only own around 52% of the franchise. However, all the opposition wants to discuss is the Maloofs and the Kings.

Furthermore, I would love the opposition to get a measure on the ballot to improve schools, levies and law enforcement. I would vote yes to most additional measures that will improve my community. I am voting yes on Q&R for the 600 miliion for civic improvement as much (if not more) for the arena portion.

Again, the saying "cut of your nose to spite your face" has never been more fitting.