Don’t Shoot Yourselves in the Foot

City Council members are going to shoot themselves in the foot if they let the opportunity to build a new entertainment and sports facility downtown pass by without answering the right questions. They shouldn’t focus on exaggerated expense numbers or short-term views, or they will be guilty of small thinking. Or worse, of confusing fiction with reality simply to appease the misguided thinking of their constituents.

Last month in this column, I reported on the results of a study by 21 people representing a few thousand businesses, the Arena Task Force. The group concluded that a new sports and entertainment facility is needed for Sacramento, and should include some public financing to make it viable. Although the group did not weigh in on a specific site, my belief is that the site at Seventh and K streets, envisioned by two forward-thinking architects, Louis Kaufman and Jeff Warner from Chong Partners Architecture, is an excellent idea. Thus far, however, fear and exaggeration are blocking serious discussion.

Councilman Dave Jones’ view has been that any public financing as a component for building a new arena won’t pencil out and thereby will deny funds for public housing and other uses. Even though he leaves office this fall, he held press conferences in other councilmembers’ districts to bang the drum against the arena, seemingly oblivious to the jobs and housing and vibrancy such a project would create. Councilman Robbie Waters frets that the facility will reduce funds available for putting more police officers on the street. Councilman Jimmy Yee seems to see only the up-front cost rather than the revenue that will result from this investment downtown. Worse, they do not seem to realize what might happen if downtown does not get the boost that a new facility would bring.

Fact: Parts of Sacramento’s Downtown Plaza—and the stretch of K Street between Seventh and 11th streets—are aging and need to be replaced. A new entertainment anchor would revitalize this area. Locating it in Natomas or elsewhere may suffice for an arena only, but would not create a new entertainment district while also invigorating downtown, as is desperately needed.

Fact: A partial investment of public funds into an arena as a part of an entertainment complex will not reduce money available for law enforcement, low-income housing or anything else. Rather, this investment could create revenues from which to fund these things and more.

Fact: The Maloof family being jillionaires has nothing to do with the economics of siting an entertainment facility downtown and publicly financing some of it. It’s sort of like saying that Robbie Waters knows law enforcement, or Ray Tretheway knows trees, or that Jimmy Yee is an engineer. It is only anecdotal, and naysayers must get past this. For the Maloofs to put up 15 to 25 percent is fair.

Fact: Sports arenas do have questionable economics. The total economic output is what matters. The revitalized entertainment district, the jobs and the housing creation that would result from the new complex downtown seem to make it a solid, long-term investment. Examples are many and include San Diego’s new ballpark, San Jose’s arena and SBC Park in San Francisco.

Fact: Parking available downtown for an arena is sufficient. What is being missed in the argument about gridlock and limited parking is that the oft-mentioned Seventh and K streets location will enable transportation options to increase and patterns to change for multiple forms of access. Concerned businesses should not fret about pre- and post-game traffic congestion being a problem; rather they should salivate at the prospect of holidaylike shoppers and visitors embracing downtown for hundreds more nights a year.

Fact: All the answers to key questions surrounding this issue are not yet clear, but to dismiss this important prospect before the answers are in would be a terrible mistake. If it turns out that the project is too expensive, City Council need not approve it. But councilmembers need to get beyond the illusions and on to the true hard questions and look at the total net financial and community impact before deciding.

The need for community facilities and public financing is ongoing: Consider the state’s $60 million refurbishment of the Capitol in the ’80s. Likewise, City Hall currently is undergoing a $70 million expansion to meet the needs of our growing city, and the cathedral is getting a $35 million restoration. No doubt the Crest Theatre and the Community Center Theater also will need substantial reinvestment in the coming years. The Sacramento region also will need a new entertainment and sports facility, and today’s economic reality is that public financing is an integral part.

I urge the City Council to get the core questions answered and show some leadership. Asking the public what it thinks is nice, but it’s the council’s job to have a vision and strive to implement it. It might help to imagine downtown 10 years from now, left as it is: an out-of-date mall with few shoppers, and Sacramento with no facility for hosting major entertainment events. No people spending money means no tax revenue. How will we pay for low-income housing, more officers to patrol the streets and expanded city halls then?

MIKE O’BRIEN