Interesting that Smith said he'd rather see the city fund the new theatre or Powerhouse (which Smith is a huge part of) then worry about a stadium. I imagine KJ could have said "look Kings, we funded a large part of the arena and now with the sale of the Clipper for 1B, you've made a shit load of money on the value of the team on paper. You can fund this now..."
Pretty sure that is KJ minimizing any public opposition. While the city may not be directly contributing money, there are other ways to financially participate. What little I've heard has been about backing bonds/ loans to obtain better interest rate, and tax deferral via the city assuming ownership and renting back to team
I had a laugh at the first comment on the article. "Elections must be coming soon." I understand the Mayor's position. But to go "no money" up front like that is setting himself up for hard road ahead. Cause now you'll have NIMBYs holding you up to that promise. And if you need to contribute "some" money into the stadium build, even if it's for mainly street work or some cosmetic maintenance, you'll be held to your "no money" promise and blasted for breaking it.
You'd better believe every single member of STOP will be lining up in opposition if a dime of public money is spent. Considering the city will be spending money to review the project and associated costs like police for events, etc, regardless of direct money to the stadium itself, we can expect it already. These people have varied interests that mostly stem from a far left political view that is suspicious of ANY project for something like sports/entertainment and business/development. Of course, if they were wanting to build a theater or museum, spare no expense! But because it's sports/young people music/other (wastes of time and detriments to society in their eyes), it must be 100% privately financed because we all know they provide no civic purpose or cultural enrichment. I consider myself pretty liberal/progressive, but even I can see the value of civic amenities, even at public expense, even if I don't use or particularly like them. It's why I 100% supported the new downtown arena because of the impact it will have beyond simply being a place to blow tons of money to watch overpaid millionaires play a game. That's what these regressive idiots don't understand - the bigger picture. They have no concept of urban planning, what drives and maintains a dynamic urban core that attracts residents and tax dollars, nor what the negative impacts of an alternative path would be. Professional complainers will complain about anything and everything, especially of they don't like or understand it. Anyways. /rant
And associated infrastructure. City streets and utility lines don't extend themselves. I don't find the mayor's comments troubling in the slightest. The city doesn't want to pay for the stadium? Fine. All these new deep pocketed owners can pay for that. It's just as well if that makes it easier for all the various parties involved to create new urban areas and build new urban stadiums.
Let's see... Ron Burkle was the first whale that KJ attracted to buy the team and build the arena in Sac but after a conflict of interest was brought up and the prices weren't at where he wanted he walked away. Now the arena is going to be built and the development is on it's way. Who is to say that Vivek doesn't just pick up the phone and call Burkle and see if he wants in. He can help fund the stadium and in return he gets land to develop around the stadium and/or he gets a cut of some of the surrounding pieces that Vivek's group already has planned. No conflict of interest and he gets to reap the rewards of the Kings traffic to the area.
KJ's public statement are usually well thought out and serve a purpose. He's a masterful politician. He's quieting the groups ready to protest. There will be city or government assistance, as there always is in large scale projects. That assistance doesn't always have to come in the form of taxes. It very well may be infrastructure, which the city can rightfully argue that it would need to be taken care of no matter what is built there. I'm positive that KJ would not say anything to kill Sacramento's chances of getting the team. MLS already has at least a high level idea of how and where Sacramento plans to build a stadium. KJ wouldn't promise MLS one thing and a week later take it back. So there shouldn't be any concern about his comments.
The model of the Kings Ownership merging/purchasing with the Republic would fit into the multi sport ownership groups synergy model. gives Sacremto a second pro sports franchise that play in opposite season's. A pro sports market in Sacremto with only the Kings would be similar to San Antonio had with the Spurs. Soccer has already been a hit but the likelood that the MLS will award the last expansion spot to SAC is unlikely to happen. Garbers still plan of a rival 2 LA franchises is not appear to ever work out. the Galaxy-Quakes rivarly has evolved into something much bigger and better. The shared stadium NFL Giants/Jets philoshy has bombed as well. A bigger newer NFL stadium and team is what is needed and more of a piority. The Old rose bowl and LA colliseum are not stadiums that are attracting less and less big events in LA. Cities with deep pocket owners will look to purchase the Chivas franchise when they are left out of the expansion. Would Kings owned Sacremto team be better served as a step for the NASL to footprint in the west as the $$$ would not be an issue. Alot of things need to play out across the prosports landscape on the west coast. NFL, MLB, pro soccer. In the Bay area and LA are all in a state of flux with stadiums and franchises as well as MLS in 2 LA clubs and pro Soccer in SAC.