I oppose the 1/4 of 1 percent sales tax increase to build a new Sacramento downtown arena.

My questions are:

1. Why should billionaires be subsidized by the public — especially by the poor who are caught up in a tax structure that will affect them more so than those who are wealthy or middle class?

2. Why has the public been thrown a “future bone” of sharing one-half of the projected $1.2 billion revenues “down the road” for supposed, but not-targeted (left to future legislatures to determine the details) use in the emotion-laden areas of transit, law enforcement, fire safety, arts, libraries and after-school programs?

3. Without considering the true value of future dollars, why not propose an increase of just 1/8 of 1 percent (half what now is proposed) just for the arena and allow the other areas to be taken care of out of prioritization of the general fund and other program expenditures by the legislators elected to do so.

4. What led the drafters of the agreement to move from a direct up or down vote just about the arena to a position of “throwing in a few other items” to allow them to call it a general bond proposition versus what it appears to be, a specific bond proposal? Of course, the difference in approval authority is 50 percent plus 1 for the former and 66 2/3 percent (two-thirds) for the latter. **

5. Why was the financing constructed to allow the Maloofs to have a static payment schedule without taking into account the future value of money and the projection of the public’s contribution being interest based — meaning that the public’s end amount increases year to year as inflation and other factors devalue the dollar?

6. I am led to believe that the downtown pro-arena campaign will raise and possibly spend millions to convince the public to approve measures Q and R. Why cannot these contributions be considered as direct donations for the building of the arena in lieu of the sales tax increase? Albeit a drop in the bucket compared to the overall $1.2 billion projected to be raised over 15 years ($80 million a year), the millions spent to gain approval could be applied directly to the principal of the bond debt, thereby decreasing the life of the payments and further still, the overall dollar amount to be paid. If this sounds familiar, it is the same thing many home owners do by either paying a 13th monthly mortgage payment each year or by paying twice a month instead of monthly or by making at large payments over and above the mortgage directed to be applied directly to reducing the principal balance.

7. Is this the proverbial “one size fits all” concept? For example, some local leaders say it would be good for their city because they are land locked. Others say it is bad for theirs because they are expanding. If it is good for some and bad for others, should not the goal be to equalize gain by requiring that revenues be weighted to ensure that all gain the same relative to their populations — simple fairness?

CAVEAT: I have no aught against the Maloof family or the Kings/Monarchs organization. The idea of a multipurpose arena is great. I do not contest the location, though I have heard that there is some mitigation of toxic waste that must be dealt with. My objection is to the public funding of the arena as structured and presented to the voters.

CAUTION: I additionally am concerned that taxpayers need to be watchful for and wary of any ancillary actions that may come about that smell of eminent domain. With the new definition of public use to mean public benefit and the unlimited life span of blighted area designations, a usual justification government officials use to seize property — especially property concentrically surrounding its pride and joy showpiece — Sacramento County or City officials may believe that such areas need to be fixed up or replaced perhaps because of secondary traffic patterns to and from the new arena location. And often time, who is it that is hurt right along with the home or small business owners who may or may not want to sell? Many times it is those least able to fend for themselves. Just a thought, not an accusation!

SUGGESTION: As with any proposal, when briefed by advocates of the downtown arena as put before the voters, require of them or of those who crafted the proposition to identify the other alternatives considered (for example, expanding the existing Arco Arena) and to explain why they were rejected so you may clearly understand their thought patterns in concluding that the proposal before you is the best solution.

FINALLY: Please do not ascribe motive to the reasons some may give for disagreeing with my point of view or for my disagreeing with their point of view. Good people with the same goal may see some things differently without being bad people.

** NOTE: “The Sacramento County Taxpayers League goes deeper than this, considering the entire two-Measure plan as a direct violation of Proposition 218, (the Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes. Limitations on Fees, Assessments, and Charges proposition that was passed in 1996), and should this scheme pass, we will join with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in challenging the Measures in court as a violation of the State’s Constitution.” SOURCE: Joe Sullivan, Executive Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites