Arena Yes or No: Downtown Replacement

Learn more about the history of the arena debate in our extensive archive dating back to 2005.

 
There's a lot happening with plans for a proposed downtown Sacramento arena, and KXJZ reporters keep you up to date with the latest news. You'll also find a comprehensive archive of stories to understand the history of the debate and how we got here.

Sacramento County voters have a big decision to make on November 7th.  And it's about more than just an arena; it's about quality of life, taxation, downtown development, political power and more. Where do you stand? What do you think? We want to hear from you!
  • For the most part the "arena deal" has been a transparent debacle. A clear example of this is embodied in the lack of financial benefits to the City of Sacramento as an organization. Meaning, with the financial burdens and limitations now placed on local City organizations there is No Excuse for the City of Sac not to capture a reasonable and fair percentage share of the $100's of millions that could be made over the course of the next 50 years. Instead, the package has missed the boat. For this and other reasons, Clearly NO is my vote. Thank you.
    Dave D. - 11/07/06
  • I'm especially troubled to learn that the pro-arena forces are already talking about 2008. Weren't we told that this whole election was about letting the voters decide? Why, then, is the voters' decision going to be ignored?
    Karen P. - 11-03-06
  • I'm voting NO for a variety of reasons. First, I think that elected representatives Dickenson and Fong were way out of their league when they tried to bargain with the Maloofs. The result was a proposed giveaway. Second, does anyone notice a disconnect between the artists' idyllic rendering of the arena in the railroad development as seen in the TV ads and slick mailings and the reality of what is being proposed? The reality is a parking lot for 3500 vehicles (plus a parking garage), an ocean of concrete around the arena.The Maloofs also demand NO competition in the way of restaurants, cafes, or gathering places nearby--hardly people or pedestrian friendly. Third: A downtown arena would cause unprecedented traffic congestion and gridlock on game and event days, not to mention more bad air days (wasn't that figure 200 plus events a year?) So much for quality of life! Fifth: What's this delusion about a downtown arena making Sacramento a "World Class City?" Sorry folks, Rome, Paris, London, Vancouver and New York are a few world class cities. A basketball arena does not a world class city make. Sixth: I don't like being lied to by elected officials or the Maloofs.
    G.L. S. - 11-03-06
  • I could be wrong, but believe most community center type endeavors (for concerts, etc.) are owned by the community. If it is a good deal for the community to build this arena, why not do it as a community and lease it to a franchise? That way we make money at the concerts.
    David H. - 11-02-06
  • I am voting No on Q & R. I do not believe that we, the taxpayers, should subsidize an arena for the Maloofs to profit from. If they want a new arena, they can get investors and pay for it themselves. No public subsidy needed.
    Joan J. - 11-01-06
  • I think that it is a good thing to bring a brand new facility downtown sacramentoand especially on that location. But I believe that this project must be financed by private investors and making a deal with the county as far as sharing the cost and the revenues. I am not supporting an increase in sales tax at all.
    Serg D. - 10-30-06
  • I hear that the arena propositions will fail miserably. Why not? It's in keeping with the area's hidden agenda: to recognize potential then...just leave it at that. I say we write up a proposition to rename Sacramento to Potential-ville. This would make it official; we shall strive to always and forever to retain its potential and to never let it be developed. A sister proposition would rename the railyard to Shouldawouldacoulda-berg. That'll keep those interloping changeniks out of our sleepy cowtown.
    Mike G. 10-30-06
  • The killing of a sheriff's deputy this weekend made me realize I'd rather see 1/4 cent sales tax increase go toward additional law enforcement officers. It is truly amazing that we seem to care more about keeping a professional sports organization than the safety of our cities and our officers.
    Laurie R. - 10-30-06
  • Though I don't live in Sacramento, and won't be voting on the issue, I DO work in Sacramento, and have for several years. At one time my office overlooked I-5 at I-80, and I was often amazed to see northbound 5 a virtual parking lot on big game days. I keep wondering how well all those game-day cars are going to mix with existing traffic in the downtown area if the arena gets plunked down right in the middle of the existing traffic mess...
    Melody T. - 10-30-06
  • Let me preface my comment by saying I do not begrudge anyone wealth or fame; but, when there are people that cannot afford to put food on their table or pay for auto or health insurance, I think it is far-fetched to ask a town to foot a bill for a new arena when they could afford to build it themselves. After all, if you can afford a $6,000 meal doesn't it speak for itself?
    Rhonda E. - 10-30-06
  • Pamela H. summed up the case for Sacramento city interests: I agree wholeheartedly with her opinion. I would add that SOMETHING has to be done with that railroad yard eyesore. Therefore, I would vote for an arena, after thorough negotiations deliniating the benefits for Sacramentans are enunciated.
    Eve D. - 10-30-06
  • Sacramento County is being the perfect reverse-robinhood: take from the poor to give to the super rich. And yet the super rich are not happy: they want more, much more, and all in a secret deal of course. This is obscene! Have the citizens of Sacramento become like the decadent romans, ready to give up anything to get their circus games?
    Marc V. - 10-27-06
  • If this is to be publicly funded why is the city giving away the farm? The Maloofs are profit motivated and want everything. The city should limit parking to 2000, keep parking fees, keep naming rights, and get part of the gate. After all, the HazMat cleanup of the railyard will be extremely expensive, and government entities pay discounted disposal fees, which is what motivated Stan Thomas to buy the railyard: he needs the city. The people are paying, so the people should get part of the rewards.
    Pamela H. - 10-18-06